Nancy Johnson wrote:
does
a preload image _javascript_ speed up web pages that have many images?
No, it doesn't. Preloading is used for loading an image which you
aren't ready to display so that when you are ready to display it, it
will already be in the cache, and
Andy Budd wrote:
Seems like using i or span class=italic are pretty much the same.
No, here the span is worse. But it isn't a fair comparison since on one
hand you're using the wrong tool the right way, but on the other hand
you're using the right tool the wrong way. The class and id attribute,
YoYoEtc wrote:
And if some users do indeed disable it, what sort of code do you put
it as an alternative to get the site to do what you want it to do?
As a rule of thumb, never trust anything to JavaScript except in the
following cases:
1) You have control of the environment (intranet, sever
Jack Kennard wrote:
I notice there are a lot of sites in this group, that are using
javascript.
Are they mostly for determining browsers and then redirecting,
or ?
As others have suggested, building pages for individual browsers should
generally be avoided. However, on those occasions where
Nelson Ford wrote:
The
reason I brought this up was...this is a really interesting and
pertinent topic at this point as XHTML and CSS start to become the rule
rather than the exception.
I wasn't even sure if browsers actually read
the DTD to allow this to work.
The only thing that
Ever since I've been using the standards approach to web design, I've never
used spans at all. What's the point of using them?
In addition to what Mike wrote, they, like divs, can be used as hooks
for style rules. In other words, if there is something which you wish to
style, but there isn't
Neerav wrote:
Is the opinion of list members that only using web safe colours in
html/css is still the way to go or not relevant anymore?
IMHO, Web safe colors are still important only so far as viewability.
Even if the site doesn't look good, but usability and accessibility
aren't impaired,
theGrafixGuy wrote:
quote(the web is not the (Internet)quote
You are CORRECT in that, the Internet is a part of the web.
No, the Web is part of the Internet.
RESPECTFULLY, you sir are completely INCORRECT in the claim that SPAM is NOT
on topic.
Spam IS off topic (not that I mind, but that's a
Chris Stratford wrote:
-moz-border-radius
I have to say that, i think its the *BEST* modification I have seen in a LONG
time...
I wish that IE had implemented something similar, I know its not valid CSS.
I read that Mozilla included it, as well as others, not to offer extra
standard features,
Paul Ingraham wrote:
Gotta wrap it in p/p and center the contents of the paragraph?
That wouldn't be a failing of CSS, but rather, of the older, very
outdated (as opposed to IE6, which is just outdated) browsers. To
expect someone to upgrade their browser I think is much more reasonable
Chris Stratford wrote:
is it not true that all tags, eg: span li ul
all are the same thing, if you remove all the browser defaults??
>From the standpoint of presentation alone. However, some have a
function (i.e., a and form), some have nesting
limitations from the dtd (an a cannot
Peter Firminger wrote:
Turn off read receipt requests when
posting to this list! These horribly invasive things are worse than
spam and I get most of them returned to me being the list
administrator!
For personal and business emails I see nothing wrong with them; they
Nelson Ford wrote:
I've seen more and more of this fiddling with DTD's lately, and I'm
not sure it is a wise thing for us to be going off the standard...
This is and idea I've been toying with recently, and I wasn't even sure
if browsers actually read the DTD to allow this to work. I should add
A potential client asked me:
How does a xhtml
site differ from an html site and will I be
able to make modifications myself using a program such as Adobe Golive
which creates html pages?
It's the second half of the question with which I'm having a problem
since I have no experience with
Todini, Gianfranco (TWIi London) wrote:
where should I put now the form validation? I mean can I still use the
onsubmit event on the input type image and use the same _javascript_ function
that there was before or is it everytime better to have the validation on
the server-side to have a
Ned Lukies wrote:
I come from a programming rather than a design background, so my opinion may
not be the correct one as far as accessability is concerned.
Since the issue is data validity, programming is what's important.
That said, something I find even more annoying is a large form that is
Nancy Johnson wrote:
Dear All,
This is a side track to this thread: I have always used .asp for form
submission, but I want to find a _javascript_ and/or php versions of form
submissions in case I have to do a site that does not have a windows
based server.
I think PHP is the way to
Ned Lukies wrote:
I guess you could claim that javascript is quicker to highlight
errors in the form. I have always found a stream of javascript alerts when
submitting a form to be quite annoying.
Only one alert, at most, is useful (one could argue zero is better).
Beyond that, there are two
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am running with the following issue. I am working on a 2 col design. Unlike other areas,
both the content the right side bar is of rounded corners with a gap in between. My
issue is there will always be more content. How do i align my vertical height position of
the
Robert Reed wrote:
The only way I can see a browser beating IE is if it looks, feels and
behaves like IE in every way possible.
An average user will not go to the trouble of downloading and installing
another browser to replace the one they got with the OS - even if it has
According to the W3C, my valid XHTML 1.1 page only validates to HTML
4.01 Strict. I'm checking for application/xhtml+xml in order to serve
up the correct header and DOCTYPE, so apparently, their validater
doesn't recognize that mime type!
It would be nice to be able to use the logo, but if
russ - maxdesign wrote:
Floats are suppose to extend past bottom of a container.
That statement is correct in this instance but might be slightly misleading.
It would be better to say that the heights of floated items are ignored by
the parent container, so there is a possibility they may
noa wrote:
The W3C validator does recognise application/xhtml+xml. The problem
might be that you're not checking for the W3C's user agent string when
you decide which browsers to send which MIME type to. The string is
W3C_Validator.
Checking for user agent doesn't make sense; there are too
Sean Sullivan-Daley wrote:
I am trying to float 3 columns next to each other.
This appearas to be OK in IE6 but is broken in FireFox.
The columns break out of the container in FireFox.
Here is a link to the Files.
http://sean.ashtonweb.com/test/
http://sean.ashtonweb.com/test/css/style2.css
What
Ryan Christie wrote:
I assume you're using PHP Mordechai? If so, copypaste this -- based
off Simon's script but altered for 1.1 DTD instead of 1.0Tran, with
added sniffing::
Good guess. I had already made the mods to 1.1 and 4.01 Strict, as well
as removed the lang error. Needing the sniffing
Matthias wrote:
I want a type of three-col layout inside a wrapper. On the
right-hand-side is a nav at the top, no big deal (a float or
position:absolute does the trick). In the middle there is the content
(no trick at all, I think). On the left-hand-side there shall be a
support/credit box
Ted Drake wrote:
I just came across something new for me. I just started working with this company and
they are using jsp with Tomcat and Jaquar as the server environment. the pages are
being built with Forte as the editor of choice. I tried, in all my accessibility
lovingness to add title
Mark Stanton wrote:
Thanks Patrick
Yes you are right about html being the top level container, but I
guess I was thinking about visible area - I never realised that you
could style the html. Will try this out for sure.
I recall reading somewhere that you can style the title element. You
of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Peller for the link.
You're welcome.
I did had a look. but my problem is a bit different.
From the sounds of it, not as much as you think.
I am not using flat floated menus.
Shouldn't matter.
If it is flat than i can put a similar bg color or graphics to level
You would figure, one company, one logic, one set of bugs. But no!
Here's to Web Standards. Thank's Bill.
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to
Michael Donnermeyer wrote:
Wrote by two completely different teams of programmers, with different
mentalities. They actually share very little in common with each
other, other than the name that is.
I know. It was a rant in which I should have hit delete rather than send.
What inspired it was a
:@broadpark.no: Siteman DA - Bent Inge His wrote:
Hi everybody!
I hope somebody can help me with
this frustrating problem.
The menu works fine in Opera, but in
IE i get an unexpected margin in the bottom.
What am i doin' wrong here? I have
given up :..(
I took a look at
Mike Pepper wrote:
Agreed. I now just do XHTML 1.1. There is no 'strict'; just markup.
I don't see any reason to use anything less (except, maybe when dealing
with legacy code).
There are countless pros and cons (like the IE xml prelude) but it's helped
me get a better understanding of the
Sean Sullivan-Daley wrote:
CSS Positioning of Navigation
I am having a problem with IE again. I am trying to create a framed top navigation. It
seems to work in Safari/Firefox the way I intended. The only way I can seem to get it
to work in IE 6 is to add padding to the HeadNav id this pushed
Jochen Sengier [SHiKai] wrote:
Its great you guys are
promoting XHTML, CSS and such..
On behalf of my small part, thank you.
On
the WSG MINI BUTTON page, you publish the code for adding
The
image, but the code itself isnt valid xhtml strict
Rick Faaberg wrote:
- no html emails, only text (I'm tired of resizing fonts and stuff to make
messages readable
A better solution would be to ask people that if they send HTML to use
some minimum size. Also, perhaps to always send a plain text version as
an option.
- always have some text
Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen wrote:
The voices are telling me that t94xr.net.nz webmaster said on
5/28/2004 9:55 AM:
Topstyle Pro 3.10 Pro is a better bet.
...and Nick is a decent guy who really supports his products.
TS3.10 is the best I've seen. It's a very good (X)HTML and perhaps the
best CSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a style sheet I am using for the web media=screen and I also have
one for print purposes media=print. I also want to hide the CSS from
older browsers such as NS 4.0 etc. using the @import feature if possible.
snip/
It would help if you supplied either a URL or a
Kat Rasmussen wrote:
What Rick says is true -- it is illegal for US businesses (including
individuals who freelance) to discuss rates with members of the same
industry. The legal term here is price fixing, and it is taken very
seriously, regardless of the intent of the discussion or the context
Neerav wrote:
My premise is that any sensible business person should try to
differentiate from competitors by showing they have skills that no one
else has, vast experience etc and justify charging more than the
competition because of that
As I see it, Web standards allows you to charge more
Jad Madi wrote:
Useing a safe web colors, is it a standard? is it a Must?
I would say you shouldn't ignore the issue, but you don't need to limit
yourself either. If a site doesn't look as good under the limited
spectrum, so what. If, however, it looks hideous, then maybe it's worth
making
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the site is http://creekside.dpsnc.net and the CSS is located at
http://creekside.dpsnc.net/print.css and
http://creekside.dpsnc.net/creekside.css\
I take it you didn't try to validate? If you did, you probably would
have found the extra quotation mark in the link/.
Andy Budd wrote:
You say that as though the time savings are an undeniable fact. In my
experience using CSS increases the initial template build and testing
time but decreases the time taken to develop individual pages. As
such, the time savings only really start to manifest themselves on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I actually did run in through the validator once, but I guess not after
adding the second style sheet.
It's a very good first line debugging tool.
My mistake there.
No, it's not; your patent is invalid due to prior art.
I'm really not lazy and
don't expect others to do
Jaime W wrote:
Does anyone
know if there are any resources to accessible
news scroller/ticker not written in _javascript_? I have been looking all
over
for one that is not done in _javascript_ and it seems that JS and Flash
are the
common news scroller around.
Have you tried
Andreas Boehmer wrote:
Hi guys,
I was wondering whether you could give me some feedback on a website we have
created: http://www.jet.org.au.
We have tried to make it as accessible as possible, but better than any
Bobby or W3C validation is probably going through your critique. We are
t94xr.net.nz webmaster wrote:
If this doesn't convince a web professional to take a serious look at
these
standards nothing will.
and MACCAWS ( www.MACCAWS.org ) doesnt do this?
Not the same way. maccaws' argument is an intellectual argument, while
If you try to complain about IE to a client, they'll most likely say
that that's our problem. The truth is, since they are paying the bill,
it's their problem. It seems that the only way to get truth through to
them is to include in the invoice: Corrections To Make IE Compatible.
If they say
Peter Firminger wrote:
I totally disagree. IE (with it's problems) is the dominant browser and it's
absolutely your problem (the web developer) to make sure the site you build
for a client works on the most likely user-agent.
Didn't nay not to make the site work in IE. What I'm suggesting is
Manuel González Noriega wrote:
FYI, that concept is called MOSE and described here
http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2003/06/25/mose/
Thanks. So someone with more clout than me said it about a year ago.
What I'm adding is that we should let the client know we're doing it,
but not charging
Mark Harwood WebMail wrote:
Im sorry but you never ever suggest to a client that the site will not work in
IE, 9 time out of 10 a client will only know about IE. If your suggesting
standards you should know what and what not to do to make a standard site work
accross all browsers.
I said the
Without question, the best editor out there (at least until the next
version come out--which should be soon) is TopStyle 3.10. Full support
for XHTML 1.1 (a default template is missing, but can be added in under
a minute), CSS-2, and Ruby. It has code highlighting for several
scripting
Rick Faaberg wrote:
What is Ruby?
Contrary to what others seem to have thought, I meant the Ruby Annotation
specification from the W3C:
http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/
I mentioned Ruby support not because I think it's that useful in most
instances, but rather what having the support says
Chris Stratford wrote:
It is always best to avoid any sort of hack.
It's important to remember why hacks exist in the first place. More
often than not, it's because a browser either doesn't support a feature
of CSS, or worse, supports it incorrectly.
There is always a way around a hack, if that
J4Web wrote:
style type=text/css media=screen@import
url(/stylesheets/wsg_advanced.css);/style
link rel=stylesheet href=/stylesheets/wsg_main.css
type=text/css media=screen
Is the import hack a candidate for first (or sole) item on the list of
standard hacks?
After giving it some thought, I
Marc Greenstock wrote:
that means the server has to scan the specified directory for all
those files rather than retrieving the specific files.
The server has to scan the directory anyway in order to find the file
matching the requested name. Server software isn't omniscient, scanning
the
Marie wrote:
I can't believe y'all are taking this guy seriously enough to even comment
I can. I'm guessing that the reason so many have commented is that they
are so blown away by the nonsensical idiocy put to HTML. Often in
situations, such as this one, where one is overwhelmed by the conflict
Lachlan Hardy wrote:
Chris Stratford wrote:
So its incorrectly loading the media for SCREEN...
and wont load CSS from one method either...
This is fairly typical of small-screen devices. Since most web
developers don't use CSS properly yet, and many of those who do don't
create handheld CSS,
This may be good news for standards.
http://www.itweek.co.uk/News/1155868 :
Ubizen has advised computer users to switch to alternative web
browsers like Netscape or Mozilla for the moment.
Also at:
http://www.ubizen.com/c_about_us/2_public_relations/2004/040611_e.html
Now the question is will
Patrick Griffiths wrote:
I think what would be better than individuals switching would be for
computer manufacturers to pre-install Mozilla or Opera on PC's.
It would be nice if Opera would do this. I don't see it as a possibility
with Mozilla for a very simple reason: money. Another possibility,
Ian Fenn wrote:
I changed the screen resolution to 1024x768 but no change.
It's ill advised to design for a particular resolution, especially a
high one.
Any ideas on what may be the cause of the problem?
I haven't looked for a solution yet, but I did find another problem.
While it looks
Ian Fenn wrote:
I need help from more experienced hands. :-/
I'm not sure I qualify, and I've only been able to give the code a brief
look, but I think I can at least put you on the right path.
For starters, it's a lot easier to debug code which is properly
indented. You want to condense it to
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
Amidst all the hubhub about Standards and Validation, some people are
arguing that they use XHTML served correctly as application/xhtml+xml
to ensure that their documents validate. Their reasoning is: if I make
a mistake in my code, browsers will fail to render the
russ - maxdesign wrote:
Before meeting David I always read that navigation should be last I nthe
source. I asked David this when he came to talk to the WSG recently and he
said emphatically:
The navigation should go before the content.
This proves once again the difficulty of perfect
Kim Kruse wrote:
I'm sorry to ask this question but I've been looking at this page for
too long and I can't see why there is a small gap between the top nav
and the content.
#menu #current a {padding-bottom:5px;}
versus
#menu a {padding-bottom:4px;}
Change either to match the other and you
Razvan Pop wrote:
I've started to build a Standards Compliant Websites Directory. A
Web Directory where only Valid W3C sites will be accepted. What do you
think? Should I continue?
Interesting idea. If you do so, you'll need to recheck validity on a
regular basis. In which case, you should do
Kyle Barrow wrote:
OMTP is a new standards body attempting to promote open standards
amongst mobile manufacturers.
With the messy state of Web standards compliance on mobiles, an
organisation like this is long overdue although I noticed NTT DoCoMo
is a member which is rather like inviting
Justin French wrote:
If
we had *ascendant* selectors, my problem would be solved, but we don't:
imga { border:0; }
Bowman stopdesign.com solves the problem with a 'noline' class
on his linked image tags, but in this case, I can't edit the source of
the image tag, as it's
Chris Blown wrote:
Thats _really_ bad
Browser checking is a thing of the past and should be gladly forgotten.
Something that we can all thank the web standards project for.
Is there a valid reason to do browser checking? I can't think of one...
There are plenty of reasons to do so server side,
Kyle Barrow wrote:
Once user agent if...else or switch statements enter your code, you
begin the walk down the slippery slope to code obsolescence,
especially with mobiles.
True, but I never suggested indiscriminate usage. While in most cases it
over used, and therefor best to avoid, judicious
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope this is ok to ask. This subject is of great interest to me and I can't
find the original message it: Tim Berners-Lee - Keeping Web Universal. I
haven't check this mailbox in a week so I've got hundreds of messages and may
have accidentally deleted the original
Ted Drake wrote:
As far as I know, the name attribute for creating anchor tags is being depricated. Is that the same for our forms? If I am using an input or selector, should I only use an id attribute or should I continue using the name as well?
Not just anchors, but for almost all elements.
John Horner wrote:
So, the question is, what does the browser actually do? Three
developers, discussing this, came up with different answers.
Does it download only the images required for that page, download all
images, or does it download the ones needed right away and the others
in the
Ben Bishop wrote:
You have an unstyled unordered list inside the body of an otherwise
empty, yet valid (x)HTML page - and when this page is rendered in
Firefox 0.9 and the mouse pointer moved over the list, the list
disappears?
That would be a pretty big bug even for Microsoft to let
After getting: Error: element label not allowed here; possible cause is
an inline element containing a block-level element. I finally figured
out that a fieldset is required for XHTML1.1. However, after after doing
some checking I couldn't find anything at the W3C about it in anything
which
Sage Olson wrote:
Here's my header:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd;
html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en
That's not you HTTP header. The HTTP headers are sent by the server
before even the first byte of your document is
McCain wrote:
Inputs and form elements MUST be inside a Block element like fieldset,
div, p, ... for XHTML 1.0 Strict complience, but not necesarily and only
inside fieldset.
I recheck and yes, other block level elements (except for form) or misc
class (ins, del, script, noscript) are
Anders Nawroth wrote:
You could also avoid using session id's in links, using only cookies.
php_value session.use_trans_sid 0
php_value session.use_only_cookies 1
This also takes care of the security issue (not a 100% fix, but it
helps) of having the ID in the address window and in the links.
Geoff Deering wrote:
It depends which DTD you are referencing as to whether they are deprecated
or not, but U is definitely deprecated in everything from HTML4 onwards.
And B and I are deprecated for future compatibility because they belong
in "Font Style Elements", which are all
Geoff Deering wrote:
Yes, correct for XHTML1.x, but I can't see it in your reference to
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-inline-text.html#sec_9.12. All the
font style elements have been removed in XHTML2.
The reference was in regards to sub and sup which currently are valid
XHTML2 without any
Geoff Deering wrote:
They are not part of the "Font Style Elements", they are part of the
"Special Inline Elements". But this shows how even the W3C specs can be
misleading, cause FONT is part of the Special Inline Elements", yet B, I, U
etc are "Font Style Elements".
I've done some
Robert O'Neill wrote:
Looks as expected in IE6 but navigation does not float as expected in
Opera and in Mozilla the footer moves to the top of the page. Any
help, advice, or guidance would be greatly appreciated.
The problem is that you're assuming IE6 is getting it right. That's a
bad
Geoff Deering wrote:
I have no disagreement with this at all. What I
am saying is if you develop a large site, that is very well designed
and engineered, then, when XHTML2 comes out there are found to be HUGE
benefits for using it (this is just hypothetical), then what is the
cost
Neerav wrote:
The WSG has a new (since Jan 2004) mailing list for discussion on
Content Management.
Unfortunately, the level of activity isn't exactly spectacular.
Anyway, thanks for link to the archive; I don't remember seeing it
listed in the resources when I looked a few weeks backs.
Here's the situation: Sliding doors, right justified. Works fine in
Firefox and IE/Win 5.01+. In Opera 7.23 all the tabs line up
vertically. According to the ALA article IE/Mac does something similar.
The solution there is to float the anchors, but it doesn't help here.
The only thing which
Michael Kear wrote:
Ive lost a reference to another excellent article I read about how to
guarantee that two or three columns will go all the way to the bottom
of the page, regardless of the length of any of the columns. Can
anyone help?
Was it
Neerav wrote:
I havent tried this, but it sounds interesting
http://www.phoenity.com/newtedge/hide_email_spambots/
Two problems: doesn't allow mailto:; and doesn't work in IE.
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
How's about:
pso-and-soscriptdocument.write(@anywhere.com)/scriptnoscript@anywhere.com/noscript/p
At least you're covered whether or not JavaScript is enabled.
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
Kay Smoljak wrote:
On an almost completely unrelated and off-topic topic, I find it
interesting that the word Favourites has never become as popular as
Bookmarks, even amongst casual non-technical users, despite the fact
that IE has like 110% market share. I guess it's because you can't use
Mark Stanton wrote:
- If its visible to users spam harvestors can get it if they really want to.
Of course. The point is just to make it more difficult. A car alarm
doesn't stop car theft, but with all else equal, the thief will choose
one without an alarm.
Client wants drop shadow on the site name and some photos in the header.
For the photos I was planning on using one of the methods at ALA.
The bigger problem is the text. CSS has a text-shadow property, but it
seems the even Firefox doesn't support it. It seems I'm left with
following choices:
Noa Groveman wrote:
Hey guys. I remember seeing this a while back, but for the life of me
I can't find it now. It's an experimental browser that supports
everything currently included in the XHTML 2.0 spec. Does anyone know
what it's called?
XHTML 2.0 is still in draft status. There is
Hugh Todd wrote:
Who would elect such a body? Web designers? Governments? Users? The UN?
As it is, we have the major browser manufacturers on board, the guy
who invented the web heading it up, and some of the clearest-thinking,
most far-sighted people in the web community making contributions
brian cummiskey wrote:
Opps- Thunderbird handels multiple quoted messages poorly. I blame
it fully for that error :) Couldn't possibly be user error :X
That's funny. I usually find it does a better job than most.
*
The discussion list for
Geoff Deering wrote:
I'd like to ask others opinions about the issue of adding your own styles
for web forms.
It's a tool I could only see myself using slightly, if at all, most of
the the, but when you need it, you want it to be there. So yes, it would
be a good tool to have in the toolbox.
Putting an id or class on the html or body tags is a useful way of
targeting slight variations in style rules with resorting to a second
style sheet.
I remember seeing a discussion of the pros and cons, but I can't
remember where. Does anybody have a link? Or perhaps the discussion can
begin
Patrick Lauke wrote:
Keep in mind that you can't have id or class attributes on the HTML
element (not in xhtml, nor html4). Apply them to the BODY instead.
I checked, and your right, but since body can take both, that's the way
to go.
However, validity was only a minor part of my question,
Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen wrote:
OK, slow, invalid, unaccessible. All we need is the lava lamps. Way
to go, AMG!
Slow? Nah. Before I'd call them slow they'd got to speed it up a lot. I
ran a speed report from the Web Developer Toolbar; the results were
ghastly! (See below)
The real sad part is
Ted Drake wrote:
listing a size and max length for the text input field. I would like to define the
width with css and leave out the size attribute on my input fields.
To get around IE nasty habit of expanding boxes to the destruction of
the layout, I set {width : 80%;} with success. The
Justin French wrote:
In my opinion, you still need to set a default width for the element
using the size attribute, for those without CSS. Yes, it will be
overridden with CSS for 99% of your browsing audience, but it safer to
put *something* in there as default, since you have no idea how a
1 - 100 of 285 matches
Mail list logo
