Re: [WSG] [WSG Announce] Some links for light reading (22/12/09)

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Guys,
> Shouldn't this be a separate thread?

Maybe there shouldn't be any thread in the first place. On the other
hand, my complaint
was about "Some links".

Anyhow, I won't bother you anymore. My apologies to anyone offended.
Have a great holidays
and less "Out of office" replies next year.

Best wishes,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] [WSG Announce] Some links for light reading (22/12/09)

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> I reckon HTML5 Nazis

I thought I was being rude there…

> should chill our regarding the XHTML debates as HTML5
> and XHTML are interchangeable terms.

How so? HTML5 has XML serialization, but that does not make HTML5 and XHTML
"interchangeable" in any way.

> Comments like this other guy made just add unnecessary negativity to the
> whole thing.

So no matter how wrong someone is nobody can say that without being "unnecessary
negative"?

> Russ is a legend in his own right and no one should even attempt to cyber
> bully him. ;-)

Asking for a basic QA when choosing links for "light reading" counts
as cyber bullying?
This place gets stranger and stranger…

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] [WSG Announce] Some links for light reading (22/12/09)

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> It obviously worked in provoking discussion.

Where do you see discussion there? Does "keep them coming" count as one?
I am all for "them coming" but I'd like some QA applied to them too.

> (And I reserve the right to keep my opinion about the original commenter to
> myself ;-)

Don't be shy. I will stick to my right (I hope I have one) to call BS
when I see it.
Just as I did five years ago when Vlad was pushing similar FUD about HTML
on this same list. Now seems like he has a new target.

> "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds
> discuss people."
> - Eleanor Roosevelt

I was discussing the quality of the posts on rebuildingtheweb.com. I
still think that
this groups deserves better than writings of the guy who calls end
tags "elements"
and thinks that missing end tags for html and body elements in HTML4 is invalid
markup.
Seems Russ and you opted to discuss me instead. Do you think that quote
still applies?


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

[WSG] [WSG Announce] Some links for light reading (22/12/09)

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Will HTML5 make the Web even more invalid?
> 

Can you provide any reason why you keep posting links to this site?
Yes the blog _seems_ to be about web standards, but the posts
are just speculation of poor quality and based on the lack of information,
misunderstanding and false assumptions.

Sure, the guy has financial interest of keeping xhtml afloat, so he
may see the HTML5 as a threat, but that's not a good enough
reason to spout nonsense.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [Spam] :Re: [WSG] a table layout issue

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> I am ready to tell client technically this can't be done but this issue
> really struck me as it didn't occur to me a layout that simple can't be done
> with a table. Now it's more a personal quest than fulfilling client's
> requirement.

http://rimantas.com/bits/table/

Of course you  may need to replace some advanced selectors with classes for some
lesser browsers. I've tested with Safari 4, Firefox 3.5 and Opera 10
on OS X only.
I do not claim this is the best way to do this, but it is one of the
possible ways to go.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] A Standards Oxymoron

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Hi,
> I've sided with the following camps regarding the notion of
> pixel perfect designs and standards, so my
> interpretation of the job requirement left me
> amused by the juxtaposition.
> 
> ". And once we get over pixel perfect layouts (as a recovering pixel-nazi,
> I know it is really, REALLY hard) our designs should look lovely in any
> newer browser."
> 
> "Why websites look different in different browsers
>
> (or why pixel-perfect design is not possible on the web)"
>
> 

I still fail to see how this leads to "Pixel perfect and standards is
an oxymoron, complete opposed by goals and
the nature of the web."

Let me quote http://acid3.acidtests.org/ "To pass the test, a browser
must use its default settings, the animation has to be smooth, the
score has to end on 100/100, and the final page has to look exactly,
PIXEL FOR PIXEL, like this reference rendering." (caps are mine).
Toughest test to test standards compliance calling for pixel perfect
match hardly makes pixel perfection and web standards an oxymoron.

Though let me repeat: in most cases this requirement does not make any
sense. On the other hand, it is not that hard to achieve as some may
claim.


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] A Standards Oxymoron

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Hi,
> After peeping the following requirement in a job description,
>  " looking for a Web Developer who can translate visual designs into
> pixel-perfect, standards-compliant html/css pages"
> a grin rivaling a James Bond villain curled the corners of my mouth.
> Pixel perfect and standards is an oxymoron, complete opposed by goals and
> the nature of the web.

No, it is not. The requirement itself may be not reasonable but it
does not contradict
web standards in any way.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Back to basics!

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> So you are really saying that typing
> "I have got £100 to spare"
> is OK, instead of:
> “I have got £100 to spare”
> (just as an example, of course).
> Really?

Yes, really. HTML as SGML application has so called document character
set, which is UCS
(Universal Character Set,ISO10646). You can think of it as a huge
(tens of thousands) list of
characters where each character is identified by an integer  number,
so called code point. This
list is identical to that of Unicode so if you pick any character in
Unicode and then look up the
character with the same code poin in UCS they will be identical.

Document character set should not be confused with your html file
encoding, which for historical
reasons is specified using "charset" attribute. Basically encoding
tells how to convert bytes in
your document into characters.

Let's say your have a byte with numerical value 200 (C8 in hex) in
your document. If your
document has encoding ISO885-5 that maps into cyrillic letter "Ш". If
your document's encoding
is ISO5589-13 that will be the letter "Č". Browsers are supposed to
map known encodings to
document character set, where "Ш" is code point 1064 (0x0428) and "Č"
is code point 268 (0x010C).

Let's suppose that for some reason you want to have "Ш" in your
ISO8859-13 encoded document.
You cannot type it in directly, because this character is not in your
specified character set. Character
entities to rescue—they let you specify character from *HTML document
character set, UCS*.
This is important and some mistakenly think that character entities
map to the current encoding
(I think some old browsers did indeed do that, but that's a bug). So
È won't give you "Č" in
ISO8859-13 and won't give you "Ш" in ISO8859-5: in both cases you will
get character which has
code point 200 in unicode/ucs—"È".

So that's where character entities are useful—you can display UCS
characters which are not available
in your charset. If you are using unicode encoding there is not need
for that, just type the character.

For more info see:
http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-what-is-encoding
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/charset.html

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] utf8 character display problem

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Here's the issue:
>
> We are working on a site that incorporates Russian text. It displays OK on
> our development server, but when transferring the files to the live server
> we get garbled output.
<…>
> However, the same file uploaded to the live server displays the last menu
> item incorrectly:
>
> http://www.imperial-russian-dating.com/utf8-test.php
>
> The file has been saved as utf8 encoded in the editor (Komodo) and then
> uploaded to each server.
>
> Any ideas ?

There are headers sent by your live server:
Connection:close
Content-Length:862
Content-Type:text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date:Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:22:43 GMT
Server:Apache/2.2.3 (CentOS)
X-Powered-By:PHP/5.1.6

Take a look at Content-Type header: it specifies charset as iso-8859-1. Charset
specified in HTTP has preference over charset in META. If you have
access to your
server configuration look for AddDefaultCharset directive in Apache
config. You can either
change it to UTF or comment it out.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] font size - was [ Accessible websites]

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> I've been reading (and trying to learn from) the discussions on
> accessibility and particularly font size. I have never had any success at
> using ways other than pixels.
<…>
> So, whilst the idea of text at 100% sounds reasonable, I always get a mixed
> bag of results. I feel as a designer(suggester), that I cannot possibly
> allow something I've done to look laughably clumsy in some browsers.
> Contrary to the idea that users want to choose there own settings, my
> experience is that very very few even know they can do it, let alone want to
> be bothered!  Is there a way around this, which provides a more consistent
> interface AND maintains user choice for those who want it?

Idea about respecting "users' choice" is plain bullshit, this kind of
meaningless
discussions were going there for six years or so, and they lead to nowhere.
Best way is to ignore them. And him.


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] website fonts

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Oh, it doesn't stop with fonts! Some website producers are arrogant enough
> to force text and images on the visitor instead of allowing them to enjoy
> the default text and images they have written for their own browser. It's
> shocking; simply shocking. If people actually wanted to read the text, see
> the images, and enjoy the graphic and typographic design of other people
> (give me a break!), they would have connected these computers into a
> world-wide network and permitted us to browse around looking at one
> another's... hey... wait a minute... hmm, let me rethink this one.

Paul, thanks for this one, made my day!

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] The weirdest IE bug I've ever encountered.

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Then perhaps you would care to explain why this document:
>
> http://zenpsycho.com/quirkstest2.htm
>
> activates standards mode, when the table you've linked to suggests
> that it should be in quirks mode?

Table clearly shows, that this page should activate standards mode.
It is the last line, „unrecognized doctype“.

> I would conclude that the page you've linked to does not reflect
> reality. What would you conclude?

I conclude, that "HTML (No Version Present)" means doctype like
this:



and   falls under "unrecognized !DOCTYPE"
(and is actually the only reason why html5 has doctype at all:
because unrecognized doctype triggers standards compatible mode in IE),
hence the table is accurate. Test with the versionless doctype
I gave above and see.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] The weirdest IE bug I've ever encountered.

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> I'm pretty sure the well observed and documented behavior of IE is
> that WHICH doctype makes absolutely not a lick of difference at all.

This is not correct.

> The only thing it looks for is the string  of the document, which decides whether it goes into quirksmode or not.

Rendering mode does depend on the doctype:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb250395.aspx#cssenhancements_topic2

<...>

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Getting back on subject, I do not think the box model has been fixed in IE7,
> but I do not know for sure. You might try adding margin for separation with
> containing div tags in browsers.

Once again: box model was fixed in IE6, given your page has proper doctype (and
nothing above it).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb250395.aspx#cssenhancements_topic3

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Personally, I think there should have been a companion article
> explaining why designers can't write code.

That would be the very wrong article.

> This is a classic example: the whole point of setting the base font size
> to this value is to make the maths easier when sizing all other font
> rules; but that itself exposes the fact that the designer is still
> basically designing with Pixel sizes!

And there is NOTHING wrong with pixel sizes. Some myths
just never die.

> Under those circumstances, I would tend to encourage the use of sizes in
> percentages, after a global reset to 100%.
>
> But then, I am a developer, and think that Design Types shouldn't be
> allowed anywhere near an angle bracket - for their own good: they are
> too sharp for the un-trained hand.

So you say Dave Shea, Dan Cederholm, Douglas Bowman, Dunstan Orchard
and other should not be allowed to write code? What a pity, they could teach
a thing or two 99.999% of developer types out there.

And yes, I am a developer.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/





>
> Mike
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
> On Behalf Of CK
> Sent: 24 April 2009 00:57
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
>
> Hi,
>
> Would you elaborate on why the CSS rule invalidates the article? As it
> appears the authors explanation is sound.
>
>> html {
>>           font-size: 62.5%;
>>         }
>
>
>
> ***
> 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
***

Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Is the box model in IE7 still messed up? I thought they sorted it?

Box model was fixed in IE6 (with apropriate doctype).

> I am floating a div to the right with a width of 50%. The div to the left
> has a right margin of 50%. I've put a 1px solid border on both of them. In
> IE7 there is a gap between them but in Firefox they are right against each
> other.
>
> Go figure?

May be some rounding issues.


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> What kind of mobile phone does the average person use?
<…>
> As for that figure, I'm not sure that includes browsers that don't
> actually support javascript at all!
<…>

The right question to ask would be "what kind of mobile phone does the
average person
use to browse the web?". My point is, that those owning devices with
not so great
browsers avoid browsing the web, on the other hand iPhone or Android phones make
it straight-forward and pleasant experience. The end result would be
that despite
being insignificant number in terms of mobile unit count these devices
will be much
more prominent on the web.
See for example here:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/iphone_users_search_google_5000
or here: http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=2321

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Another point to note is that many mobile phones have JavaScript enabled
> so this figure may increase with the expected rise in mobile popularity.
> *** Sorry - that should have said disabled not enabled **

I actually see mobile browsing rising in popularity when browsers on gadgets
are full capable—like mobile safari, or android's browser, so I don't expect to
see the number of JS enabled users decreasing because of mobile devices.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> IMO stats from tech sites are not very representative of the
> general intarwebs user base.

Exactly, only this can mean the opposite of what you state:
more tech savy users know how to turn Javascript off, unlike
the general public.


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Helpful Criticism and Browser test plz

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Just got  my latest project to validate XHTML Strict, and just wanted any
> helpful criticism and also to see if any problems with any Browsers and
> Operating Systems .
>
> http://www.clock-this.co.uk/

Pro:
Looks nice

Cons:
  - increasing text size messes thing up (at least in Safari/Mac)

  - Inline styles (style="…") – bad idea. CSS is about seperation
content and presentation, so inline styles should be avoided.

  - This is really bad:
.
   Decorative images shouldn't be in you XHTML code, they belong in
CSS. Also, use CSS to position them.

  - This is especially bad: http://www.clock-this.co.uk/tick-talk.php";>Tick Talk
 Jus use CSS for effect: define how your links look with a:link {…},
and then define how they look while mouse is over them with a:hover
{…} That way you will avoid needles
code repetition, unnecessary Javascript and inline styles, code will
be much more compact and easier to read/maintain.

I think this will do for starters, did not dig deeper.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Isn't 'aria-required' a non-standard attribute?

Sadly, yes. But there is some hope: it is possible that ARIA will be
accepted in HTML5 and there is an initiative to provide validation for
(X)HTML+ARIA: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Sep/0381.html

Validator.nu already has experimental support for HTML5+ARIA, and I
believe (did not check) http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/ provides the
same for document type "HTML5".

There is also a possibility to add ARIA attributes with Javascript.
All the options are controversial, but that's how it is for now :(

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Without using alerts, you could add the warning into the actual
> document. But how does a screen reader know the document has changed?

For starters: http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/introduction-to-wai-aria/

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

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

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> FWIW - You can use the HTML 5 DOCTYPE today. Browsers only use the DOCTYPE
> for standards / quirks mode switching, and all browsers switch to strict
> with this, I believe:
>
>  
>
> The validator still needs a DTD though.

There is a validator for HTML5: http://html5.validator.nu/


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

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

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> I made the same decision. I still follow HTML and XHTML, but anything I do
> (and have a choice about) is always HTML 4.01 Strict. I think it makes more
> sense than XHTML 1.0 Strict at this point since we can't really use "real"
> XHTML yet. It seems to defeat the purpose if you are using a Strict DTD
> incorrectly.

Same here and looking forward to start using HTML5, at least for the
personal projects first.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

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

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
> I say that in the years coming, maybe 20 years from now, who knows, but
> eventually HTML and XHTML will be replaced by XML.

XHTML _is_ XML

> The other two say differently, more along the lines that they will never do
> away with HTML or XHTML.

Even if HTML will be replaced by something it won't be XML. And I am
pretty sure we will still have plenty of HTML around.


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Who are the "Away on leave" Notices from? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> wondering what part of THREAD CLOSED people don't understand...

I have always had trouble understanding messages that I do not see.


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Who are the "Away on leave" Notices from? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> but the point of IT is to make life easier. So it is the responsibility of
> the OOON setter to make heir OOON not mailstorm their lists and add more
> email to the already massive amount mail servers have to deal with.
>
> No to mention, this discussion would then be filtered out, so you wouldn't
> have been able to participate in this discussion.
>
> I believe in stopping the waste at source (conservation) over trying to fix
> it further down the line (recycling) as it is less work and a lighter load
> that way.

That is all true, however… there will always be someone who
forgets/does not know how to
set up ooon properly - and no policies will save from that, so the
only effective way to
get rid of this kind of messages is to configure the mailing list
software to take care of it.

Of all the lists I am subscribed to WSG is the only one where these
messages get through.
I guess there are valid reasons why this is this way, but if it is
fixable on ML side
that would be a welcome change indeed.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> I don't think Javascript is Object-Based, because I can just write a
> function that prints instead of using an object. And even though
> Javascript has objects, I think the style of writing it is more
> accurately described by the prototype model.

You can print "Hello, world" in Ruby without explicitly creating
any objects, does that also make it not Object-Based?
And yes, even primitives and nil are object in Ruby (are primitives
truly objects
in Java, or can they be wrapped into objects?).

Prototype is just one of the possible inheritance models.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
> As others have said, most other OO languages implement class-based
> inheritance, often as a result of their linear underpinnings. People who
> are used to this approach, then go through some horrible kludges to
> simulate this unnecessarily in JavaScript apps, and then complain that
> the results are horrible. Prototype-based inheritance is a very
> different beast, and one that is much better suited to the way that
> JavaScript is supposed to be used.
<...>

And thereby I suggest some related reading:
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/10/universal-design-pattern.html
Enjoy!

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Opera not playing nice with checkbox

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> By the way, the radio buttons on the above page, is exactly what I wrote
> about annoying thing about Opera that it inherits the borders from input
> element.

Checkbox _is_ an input element. Just like radio – they are all INPUTs only
with different type. If you want to target some type specifically you can
use attribute selector in CSS - but that won't work for older IEs.


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/

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

Re: [WSG] Figures out issues. Standards for troubleshooting css

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> My first steps are of course make sure things validate. Beyond that I don't
> have any standard steps besides really using google.  Any good lists of
> generic steps people do when troubleshooting CSS issues.

One URL: http://getfirebug.com/

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Multiple Firefox on Mac

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Does anyone have a link to a decent reference on running Firefox 2 & 3
> simultaneously on Mac? I can't seem to find a decent one out there.

It is very easy, see here for the ideas: http://ejohn.org/blog/sexy-firefox-3/

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url

[Rimantas Liubertas]

>> let's not forget that the iPhone's
>> browser is (as of right now) the largest mobile browser,
>
> Not true.  Opera Mini has more active users per week than iPhones that exist
> on the market.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/iphone_users_search_google_5000 :

"The Financial Times talked to Google at the Mobile World Congress in
Barcelona and found some interesting figures. iPhone users do an
average of 50 times more Google searches than their nearest
competitor."

http://localmobilesearch.net/?p=513 :

Roughly 85% of iPhone users access news and information and 59% search
on their devices. That compares with 13% and 6% in the broader market.

<...>

> Again not true.  Take the HTC Touch Diamond.  It has both a superior screen
> resolution, and similar hardware specs, and a full HTML browser (Opera
> Mobile 9.5) with arguably greater standards compliance.

Cannot tell about the mobile versions, but from what I see going on with Webkit
it is ahead of all other engines.

> And unlike Mini it has a full
> JavaScript implementation.

And let's see what's going on with JavaScript on iPhone:
http://daringfireball.net/2008/07/webkit_performance_iphone


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Javascript help with Reg Exp required please

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> var rule2 = eval('/' + txt + '\s/i');
> console.log(str2.match(rule2)); // returns fooSz

Try var rule2 = eval('/' + txt + '\\s/i');


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
> FWIW - and I do not wish to reopen the "considered harmful" debate -
> appendix C allows for sending XHTML 1.1 as well as XHTML 1.0 as
> text/html. (That's a recent change in the specs that few seem to know
> about.)

Can  you elaborate what appendix C are  you talking about?
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/xhtml-media-types.html#summary
(latest version, supposedly) does not confirm this.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Why sniff out browsers that accept XML? If the document is marked as XHTML
> 1.1 it should allways be sent as XML.
<...>

That is true, but Internet Explorer does not support XHTML.
HTML 4.01/5 ftw :)

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Float-less layouts

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> When using DIV, what translate that "hierarchy"?


  
  should "reveal" the relationship between these elements.

"something" — like being in the same DIV?

> In the above example, what are the 2 DIVs used as wrappers (instead of the
> OLs) if they are not just structural hacks?

Since when using element for the purpose it was created is a hack?

> At least with the list construct the wrappers *are* semantic.

And how many "semantic" wrappers/containers/whatever are you going to
have in the standard?
No matter the number there will always be need for the generic one —
which DIV is.

<...>


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/

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

Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> > Speaking only of businesses int he United States, no government
> > entity should be telling a private business what it must do
>
> WHAT?
>
> with that one line you have just summarised all that is strange about
> America.  Private business is above the law?  They can do whatever
> they like?
>
> so it's okay if a private business murders people?
>
> what about paying taxes?  the government tells them to do that, are
> you saying that a private business can decide not to pay tax?


I think these were mentioned in the part of the post you did not
include in your quote... Interesting quoting tactics.


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> That was, in part, why I started this thread; I felt (and still feel)
> that the notion of "you MUST design for 100% of your users' default text
> size because that is their preferred text size" was becoming a mantra.

And that is only an assumption. Default font size was chosen by browser
vendors, not users. Not many know they can change it. Even less who know
do it.

> People sometimes repeated it dogmatically, without really thinking about
> it. Dogmatism worries me.

It should.
<...>

On the other hand people can have their windmills to fight against if
they don't hurt
others in process.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Standards and Blogs

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
> One question though: On your tutorial page, you appear to put some PHP
> code above the doctype in order to remove any instance of self-closing
> tags. Specifically:
<...>
> Does this not throw Explorer into quirks mode? I was under the
> impression that anything (other than whitespace, maybe) before the
> doctype had this effect.
> Is PHP code an exception to this rule? or am I way off base here?

Yes, because to throw IE into quirks mode you have something in HTML before the
doctype. PHP code is processed on the server and browser does not see
it, only  the
output. So, if it does not output anything you will be fine. One
should be careful, though
and watch for newlines and whitespace.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] an inline element (inside a block element) sibling ofanother block element

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> I think I'd like to hear from someone really into this stuff - because I
> realized that my interpretation would outlaw this:
>
> 
> 
> 
>
> and surely that must be okay, no?

I am confused, what problem do you try to solve?
Yes, according to specification and DTD as shown earlier it is ok to
have inline, block,
or mixed content in DIV.
Semantics don't have much to do with it - as you may have valid reasons to wrap
single word (or image, or link) in SPAN you may have valid reasons to
wrap it in DIV - they are both generic containers.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] an inline element (inside a block element) sibling of another block element

[Rimantas Liubertas]

A line of plain text.
A paragraph.
Another line of text.


Now a question, Is this actually valid??
I recently recieved some templates of another designer and this was
scattered all throughout the pages.

I went through and put  around them BUT is it valid??? Or is it a
case of in Transitional DTD its ok but Strict DTD it is not??


Why not to check it? From HTML 4.01 Strict DTD:

Let's see DIV:


Ok, now let's look up what is %flow:



Checking %inline:


Just to make sure - %special:



Woohoo, A is here. Case closed.


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Using target="_blank"

[Rimantas Liubertas]

I used to work for a web development company who designed a website for a
large homebuilder.  At the bottom of the home page, we had a link to our
website, i.e. Site designed by "ourCompany."  We did not use
target="_blank".  When our homebuilder customer clicked on our link and
found themselves in our website development website, and then exited our
website with the "X" and found they were no longer in their website, they
immediately told us to change that.


I think it makes sense to ask customers first and foremost, who are they
building website for: themselves or their customers.


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Who's A "Front End" Developer?

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>

 To sum things up, for me a front-end developer uses at least one of the
following techniques:
 - (X)HTML
 - CSS
 - JavaScript (client side)
 - Flash (?)


I think that even for front-end developer some level of the knowledge
about web servers and HTTP is essential. And cross-browser
development, of course.


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: self-closing tags in HTML, was: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?

[Rimantas Liubertas]

I still can't see where it says that in the spec, do you need to know
the SGML spec as well? It seems strange that the closing slash is
taken as the close, rather than the greater than sign, is that in the
HTML spec somewhere?


http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/sgmldecl.html
FEATURES, SHORTTAG YES

<...>
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] v's , v's

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2007/4/23, Robby Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

<...> I've found this list  of  depreciated  tags
http://www.html-reference.com/depreciated.htm which  lists 
and  as depreciated.   I thought the   tag would be
depreciated.


 So  which is correct? What should I be using? I know I can just use   tags, 
and apply css, it's > a little clunky to me though.  Any  thoughts on this would be 
welcome.


Look at the "Depr." column in http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html
If there is "D" in it, then element is deprecated. Obviously STRONG
and EM are not
deprecated.




Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Absolute Positioning-A Naive Question (Maybe)

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
> I don't think the Baron reference is sufficient evidence for the
> assertion that using floats for layout is an abuse of them. On the
> contrary, I have seen several references in the last few years that
> stated floats *were* the preferred layout method by the W3C CSS working
> group.
<...>

I am with Richard Czeiger on this one.
CSS is for presentation, is there "right" method?
Flotas are just more robust, IMHO, that's it.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Some studies about web standards usage (sites of Estonia and W3C members)

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> I have made some further studies on Estonian web sites.
>
> Compared to the survey done in August, the number of
> valid sites has grown almost 50%.
>

Quite interesting, but one thing confuses me: no HTML 4.01 Strict?

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
>I'll think you'll find
> them pretty unanimous in saying in essence don't mess with user
> defaults. Don't expect all the latter to practice what they preach
> though.
<...>

Only these are browsers vendors defaults, not users.

Can anyone point me to a study which shows:

a) How many users do know that there exists a preference for a font size.

b) How many of the do know how to use it and indeed do use it.

c) How many have an idea what 'px' or 'pt' is, and have an idea how big
is 16pt/px. Same goes for DPI settings.

d) How many users prefer to play with settings instead of doing what
they were going
to do in the first place (getting info)?

So far discussions on this topic are based only on our beliefs and
assumptions (including mine).
Usability is not about giving more means for control, it is about
removing need for control.

In my first car there was a handle which operated choke (thingy which lets
to control the air intake of a carburetor and hence the richness of
the fuel mixture.)
That gave me more control, but not more usability.

My new car does not have this - and yet it is more usable. My main task
is to get from the point A to the point B, not to play with choke. So
when I got that burden removed from me, I have more usable product.

So, good design is about sensible defaults - too choose defaults in
such a way that least possible people will feel a need
to changes them. But yes, for those you should provide means to do just that.

And once again there should be a reason that majority web pages go
with font size about 12px.
Coincidentally, 12-13px is my proffered font size...

But that, of course, does not proof anything.


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
> Yes, we as developers
> can educate them, but when they see their competitor sites (and
> even big sites from the likes of IBM and co.) *all* setting a slightly
> smaller default font size, they expect the same on their site as well.
> A "yes, but all those other sites are wrong and I do it the right way"
> argument won't hold much weight in that situation, I'm afraid...

And what if there is a reason for that (slightly smaller font size)?
I prefer when font on monitor has roughly the same _angular_ size as
font in books. And no, it is not 16px. So in this sense I do prefer
smaller fonts.
But, frankly, I am very tired of these assumption based discussions.


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] occam's razor again - was [ TARGET in 4.01 Strict ]

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Back button?  I'd like to bet
> that >75% of users don't know what that is!

Then how comes, that researches constantly show that
"Back" buttons is second most used navigational device,
first being clicking a link?

AFAIK first research on the subject was by Catledge and Pitkow in 1995[1]
then confirmed by Tauscher and Geenberg in 1997 [2].
Results are still valid, "Back" is the second most used navigation method,
you may check this research by   Rogers and  Chaparro in 2003 [3]:

So be aware of anything that breaks the "Back" button: new windows
and frames included. But frames have more problems to worry about.

> Right-click to select
> opening in a new window? No chance!  Never heard of it! :-)

We have tabs now...

I hope admins don't mind this post, links to studies may be
interesting for someone.


[1] 
http://www.igd.fhg.de/archive/1995_www95/papers/80/userpatterns/UserPatterns.Paper4.formatted.html
[2] http://ijhcs.open.ac.uk/tauscher/tauscher-nf.html
[3] http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/52/breadcrumb.htm

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Rimantas Liubertas]

>
> It's much simpler to close that new window that has all that history in it
> and go right back to my site, which is where I need my audience to be. :-)
>

Well, your audience will be where _they_ need to be, no matter how
many new window one may try to open to keep them.
If someone intends to keep the original page they may choose to open
link in new tab/window
for themselves. If not - there is no point in keeping them by force.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] content type etc

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Ah... nearly.  element content-type declarations ARE used, just
> not when the page viewed is coming from a non-local filesystem/HTTP.
> So it's necessary in the sense that it enables people to save your
> page and for that page to be 'usable' in a more general sense (though
> browsers have a tendency to inject crap into saved pages: there's only
> so much you can do!)

When file is saved and then loaded Mozilla determines which parser - html, o xml
to use by file extension. So if you save xhtml file as .html/.htm and
then load it, it will
be parsed by html parser, and in this case META is taken into account.
If file is saved as .xhtml, .xml or .xht it will be parsed with xml
pareser and META is ignored.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] content type etc

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Gee Rimantas,
>
> Such enlightenment!

Oh, well, OK.

According to [1] XHTML1.1 should not be sent with MIME type of
text/html. Some may argue
that "should not" is not the same as "must not" and need to serve IE
justifies the use of "text/html"
MIME type for XHTML1.1, but I belong to "XHTML as text/html is
meaningless" camp.

In case of application/xhtml+xml MIME type meta element makes no sense
at all, because it is not
used for anything - neither for mime type (which is never used for, be
it html or xhtml), nor for character encoding information [2]. HTTP
headers and XML declaration are used for this purpose.

As for omitting mime type from meta element and leaving only charset
info... This might work
only in text/html context, in which such omission makes no sense.

On the other hand charset info is optional in Content-type HTTP
header, not the content type part
itself ;)

And you were right that was Lachlan who wrote about Content-type
headers and meta element,
see [3].

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
[2] http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html#xhtmldiff
[2] http://lachy.id.au/log/2006/01/content-type

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] content type etc

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
> I would then end up with :
>
> 
>  'http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd'>
> 
> 
> Tester
> 
> 
<...>
> Is that 'sensible'?

No.

>  Is it 'correct'?

No.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Wish-list for 2006

[Rimantas Liubertas]

  > 4) All remaining browsers fully support XHTML 2.0 and CSS3

I'd trade this one for " 4) anyone, who calls himself the 'web
professional' learning to use HTML and CSS
properly". Yep, its about HTML4/XHTML1 and CSS2.1...

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Best Web Standards thing I learnt in 2005.

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2005/12/22, Jay Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<...>
>  Still looking for a valid replacement to the IE CSS, display: inline-block;
> thing...

What am I missing? display: inline-block is perfectly valid in CSS2.1
Is your problem that CSS validator defaults to CSS2 profile?
You can change that selecting CSS2.1 for "Profile" in [2].
Sorry, if I misunderstood your statement.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#propdef-display
[2] http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator-uri

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2005/12/15, Bob Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<...>
> If it can't be done,

It can be done, and it has be done hundreds of times (in "real world" too):
take a look at csszengarden.com, or sites featured in cssvault.com,
stylegala.com, etc.

> I'd like to see a humble
> admission from the non-table people that maybe there is an instance
> in the real world where a table is not only OK, but probably THE
> solution so I can fell less "unpure":-} about using a table to solve
> my problem.

Seems like you are not looking for solution, but for simple encouragament
to stick with tables. Ok, if the only solution you are going to accept is table,
and marking up table in you HTML is easier than single "background:" rule in
CSS--use the table.
But yes, it is "unpure" and against the spirit and the letter of
standards (I won't
quote, it was done before). Five years ago we did not have much choice, but we
do have now.
I've mad mine, you've made yours.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Display: table-cell is a great tool, but its practicality will not be
> meaningful for several years. While IE5 Mac is fairly irrelevant, IE5
> and IE6 Windows have a long life remaining. It's a fun declaration to
> play with, but serious commercial designers would be ill-advised to
> depend on it at this point.

This is all true, but:

Me: > There is one browser with issues, not the specs.
Bob: > Which browser can correctly render the following:

Question was which browser can, not which cannot. ;)
My point was: we should not blame CSS for shortcomings of the
particular browser.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2005/12/13, Bob Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > There is one browser with issues, not the specs.
>
> Which browser can correctly render the following:
<...>

http://rimantas.com/bits/notable.html

Opera: since version 4.
Gecko browsers: works with the oldest I have got: Mozilla Seamonkey
0.6 (2000-12-05)
build.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> > I'd rather have that single, easy to spot hack, which adds very
> > little overhead, than multiple background images and extra divs
> > coupled with hyroglyphics in my css file.
>
> Amen

So, how are you going to style your single table? Either with CSS
with all "multiple background imageas and extra divs", or with even more
sliced pieces of images peppered accross that simple table?

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> Given a choice of one table or hacks to do what one table already
> does, I'll stick with the one table.

Only so called "hacks" go to the presentation layer (CSS file) and table
stays in your HTML markup.

> If the current specs still have height issues for divs (which it
> seems they do), how can we be chastised for using a table to
> accomplish what can't be accomplished without resorting to javascript
> or "hacks" - it seems the lesser of the "evils".

There is one browser with issues, not the specs.

And still - table for layout _is_ a hack.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2005/12/12, Al Sparber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<...>
> I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word "should".
> Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took "should" to have a
> suggestive or advisory connotation, while "shall" or "must" are
> obligatory :-)
<...>

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
> I'm wondering what led MSN to go with external files, and Yahoo with
> CSS in the header. MSN is obviously much more optomized than Yahoo
> (the yahoo markup is a mess), and I'm thinking MSN might have picked
> the right choice. Their CSS file is massive and probably covers all
> the internal pages, which makes it worth the extra cost of having an
> external file.

That's very very good point.

Indeed, by tidying up SERPs and using common CSS file Google would
save much much more. Optimizing only google.com start page does not
make much sense: if one uses search form then he will want results pages too.
Results pages are also generated by request from search box in Firefox or Opera,
from google powered search in other pages.
So SERPs are to be targeted if someone is serious about saving bandwidth.

And in terms of web standards MSN with valid and CSS-formated start and
results pages is way ahead of Google...

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
> Updated valid page, based on the above:
> http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html  (1,953 bytes)
>

Ok I took your version and got it to extreme:

http://rimantas.com/bits/google/google1.html (1729 bytes).

What I did: got rid of some optional tags, shortened name of CSS file
to one letter (
one may save four more bytes by removing extension); got rid of redundant META
element (that info belongs to server config), removed widht and height from IMG:
there is now use in this case to have them.

Still valid HTML strict:
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A//rimantas.com/bits/google/google1.html

> I retained the one-line Javascript in the head, but all styles are in
> an external CSS file:
> http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.css (636 bytes)
>
> So even for a one-off request, with no cached CSS, the valid version
> is 2589 bytes - *still* lighter weight than the current invalid
> version.

One gotcha here: even in cached stylesheet case there is some chat
going between browser
and server, and it usually amounts in the range between 0.5 and 1KB.
(http://rimantas.com/bits/google/headers.txt)

So, for small javascript and CSS  it may be better to have them in
html, in case every byte counts.
There is version with embeded CSS (I did not try to optimaze styles,
taken as-is):

http://rimantas.com/bits/google/google.html

Size is 2361 bytes, but about 600 bytes of traffic are saved by having
one HTTP request less.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
> I thought about doing that, but decided I didn't have time.
> Interestingly, comparing the two pages in
> http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/
> shows the original is *slightly* lighter (but I bet you could beat
> that by removing more carriage returns, same as the original)
<...>

You can also remove ,,
s and s and still be valid HTML4.01 strict.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] page check please - mime type!

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2005/12/7, Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> So is the best thing to target xhtml browsers? Like, specifically
> Opera, Safari, Konquerer, etc? How exactly would one do content
> negotation with PHP?
>

You may try this: http://keystonewebsites.com/articles/mime_type.php

On the other hand: HTML4 works just fine without all that fuss...

Regards,
Rimantas
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> > Let the market regulate itself. Let standards-compliant markup sites
> > take over because of their benefits actually manifesting themselves
> > (easier to maintain, faster, etc). We don't need yet another
> > badge...imho of course.
>
> It's not yet another badge, it was a way to show compliance
> in a way that average people could relate to. As a response
> to the charge that the W3C buttons and validator links are
> too techy and people business people don't get it.
>

I agree wholeheartedly with Patric on this. Badge is something you get
for being exceptional. And I think building websites to webstandards is
not something we should talk about as a big achievement, but it must be
the standard way of doing the web. The norm. When more clean and valid
sites appear, then more old-school methods will look rusted and outdated.

This is not to say we shouldn't educate and provide guidance for those
who are new to this world, but I think form the very first days they must get
an impression, that's not something braggable, but rather the norm of doing
quality craft.

Things to consider:
http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/advocating_the_quiet_revolution.html
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2005/11/the_new_amateur.html

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] XML Declaration

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2005/12/3, T. R. Valentine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 03/12/05, Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If your server is sending the MIME type text/html, then the META
> > doesn't do anything. You need to change the MIME type being sent out
> > in the headers, and that is done server side.
>
> Thanks for that explanation. But what about when simply opening the
> .html file in a browser, no server involved? Even there I do not see a
> difference in IE between the two forms.
>

Why should you?  application/xhtml+xml MIME type is not known to IE, so
it uses text/html.

You may want to check this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/networking/moniker/overview/appendix_a.asp

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
> The main thing is that markup is parsed correctly and there is no data loss. 
> How can IE do this
> reliably? Because valid XHTML markup written to comparability guidelines is a 
> sub-set of HTML.
<...>

The main thing is, that if parsed correctly by HTML parser XTHML would
even "produce" more data,
or to say it more exact, browsers would show more. I mean an extra ">"
popping up for every 
and .
Those compatibility guidelines rely solely on browsers failing to
implement SHORTTAG in correct way. Now, of course, is to late for
that, but see screenshot here:
http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/11/xhtml-advocates.

Regards,
Rimantas,
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards (was editor)

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2005/12/2, XStandard Vlad Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So Rimantas, you have written invalid XHTML, served it as XML and then blamed 
> XHTML
> because your Web site broke.

Your assumption is wrong :)

>If you had written invalid HTML 4 and some User Agents had
> not parsed it correctly, would you blame HTML 4?

No. And I do not blame XHTML. I don't like the selling of XHTML
without explaining exactly those
perils Hixie talks about.

> Wow, calling us liars because XHTML 1.1 has  
> constructs speaks volumes > about your character.

I call you liars because of this:
"...because only XHTML Strict and 1.1 guarantee the clean separation
of data from formatting, making them the clear choice whenever
availability of data is an important factor."

This is a lie, plain and simple.

  > As it happens, there is no other way to do arbitrary alignment in
XHTML 1.1 other than using
> this construct without resorting to inline CSS, which is deprecated, or by 
> using constructs
> that are no better like:
>
> 

I'd put it another way: "no other way to do arbitrary alignment in
XHTML 1.1 generated by WYSIWYG tool".

Because:

1. Content of  is aligned to the left by default. No align="left"
is necessary.
Content of  is centered by default.

In your case you used align="center" to center images in some columns.
This can be done in external CSS file with one rule td img
{display:block; margin:auto}

2. Content in  by default is centered vertically. In most cases we
want it to be aligned to
the top, so single rule tr {vertical-align: top} takes care of all
valign="top" attributes.
And if want to pollute your markup with these attributes, why not to
put them on tr, not each td?

3. If you have some cells which use different layout from the rest,
that means you have something
special in them. And this means you can have some id or class with
semantic, not presentational name. WYSIWYG tools are not smart enough
for that, but this is not the problem of (X)HTML and CSS.

All that means I can recode the page I referred in last post with
HTML4, and will have less and cleaner code than your XHTML1.1.
Recoding whole "Notes" section with  and getting rid of all those
decorative 
would save a bunch too.

So, "only XHTML Strict and 1.1 guarantee the clean separation of data
from formatting"???

Language does not matter, how you use it matters.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards (was editor)

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
> Lachlan, here is a classic example of a person new to Web Standards asking 
> for a
> recommendation about which editor to use and instead you embroil this person 
> in a
> debate over MIME types. Do you think this is a healthy environment for 
> newcomers to
> learn about Web Standards? Why do you need to stir things up?

You know, I have tested those "flawed assumptions" and they appear to be true.

What definitely looks like false statement is:
"...because only XHTML Strict and 1.1 guarantee the clean separation
of data from formatting, making them the clear choice whenever
availability of data is an important factor."

(from 
http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=A4372B00-8D7F-4166-977C-64E5C4E3708E&s=E638AEB0-ADC1-448B-9CE5-FB8AAE1FE55B#feature-xhtml-note)

I guess   (same
source) adds credibility to the claim.

You know, in old bad HTML I can just drop align="left" part, because
that's default behaviour, and use vertical-align: top instead of
valign="top".

Marketing is marketing, but lie adds no credibility either.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] XHTML Issues

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2005/12/2, Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
> > It is pretty easy to check, all we need is some online tool which, given an 
> > url
> > can resend page's content with application/xhtml+xml. Then grab those
> > XHTML pages and see what happens.
>
> Try Hixie's content-type proxy.
> http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/cgi/content-type-proxy/content-type-proxy

Oh, thanks a lot, you saved me from some coding :)

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] XHTML Issues

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
> I code in xhtml Strict and serve it as text/html.  My code is
> future-proof, valid and well structured.  If I code in HTML4,
> there is less "need" for writing properly structured documents.

Too bad if quality of code depends on choice between HTML and XHTML.

> If at some point in the future browsers understand xhtml served
> as xthml, changing the way it's served is a relatively simple
> operation.  Re-coding from HTML to xhtml (and unlearning bad
> coding habits) is not as simple.

Yep, changing will be the changing the line in servers config.
Not so simple for majority of happy XHTML coders will be to find out,
why CSS stopped working (case sensativity), what had happened with
bacgrounds (html vs. body issue), why JavaScript is not working anymore
(document.write, *NS and  issues), why document
does not show up at all, and browsers throw ugly error (unrecognized entities
and other issues).

Or do you claim, that all those things are showed and explained to the newbies?
What I see is "lowercase tags, quote attributes" staff.

XHTML is more "dangerous" because of the way how errors are treated and thus
requires more knowledge. Coding something in  XHTML does not make it
automaticly better.

>  > Plus, I'm sure you've read Ian Hickson's "Serving XHTML as
>  > text/html considered harmful" article?!
>
> One man's view, based on an assumption that people will write
> xhtml tagsoup. Even if they do, they will find out soon enough.

In a very painful way. And from what I've seen I can say his assumption
is pretty correct. If IE7 team cannot tell application/xhtml+xml from
application/xml+xhtml what can we expect from newbies?

It is pretty easy to check, all we need is some online tool which, given an url
can resend page's content with application/xhtml+xml. Then grab those
XHTML pages and see what happens.

> > In the case of IE and XHTML, there isn't even limited support
> > for it, there's none at all.
>
> While technically correct, it is misleading, particularly for
> newbies, who might read it as "don't code in xhtml - people with
> MSIE will not be able to view your site".  It's not true if the
> page is served as text/html.

What is the point to teach begginers The Bad Thing (tm).
If they are unspoiled begginers, they can learn to code properly
whaterver language is. And HTML4 serverd as text/html does
not rely on any unimplimented features.

<...>
>  > I think it's important for beginners to learn correctly from
>  > the beginning.
>
> Exactly.  Teach them properly structured xhtml 1.0 and serve it
> in a MIME type that the browsers people use can work with.  Ready
> to reap the benefits of X(HT)ML later, when browsers support it.
>

Benefits of XHTML, which are?

And speaking of the future browsers and "one man's view":

http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/11/xhtml-advocates
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200511/choosing_html_or_xhtml/
http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/11/draconian

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http//rimantas.com/ (in XHTML - that's WP fault).
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] firefox 1.5 is official

[Rimantas Liubertas]

>
>  The Mac version of HTMLTidy doesn't work under 1.5, which actually prevents
> me from upgrading on my work machine, as I use this all the time as a handy
> shortcut for picking up validation errors (and puts this thread vaguely
> on-topic too). The PC version works, so I'll be upgrading my PC for sure.
>

Version which I got from
http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/download.html worked
on 1.5RC just fine.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REAL LY valid?

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2005/11/11, Wayne Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>  >It's a tricky one
>
> How?
>
> If a tree falls in a  wood and no-one hears it - does it still make a noise?

Well, it is tricky one. It certainly makes some air waves, but can those waves
be called noise until they hit someone's eardrums? ;)

But digging deeper we find that noise is sound and sound is certain vibration,
"capable of being detected by human organs of hearing."

So, kidding aside, invalid is invalid.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Character encoding mismatch

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2005/11/10, Paul Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I am getting the following warning when I validate my pages:
>
> --
> Character Encoding mismatch!
>
> The character encoding specified in the HTTP header (iso-8859-1) is
> different from the value in the  element (utf-8). I will use the value
> from the HTTP header (iso-8859-1) for this validation.
<...>
> and so on. I thought this was the correct way to add special characters for
> XHTML, but what I am reading now seems to contradict this. This is the part
> of standards where I get a bit confused. Does anyone have any advice or know
> of some good articles where they explain this in simple terms??

The problem is not with your XHTML but with your server. Most likely
you are running Apache with AddDefaultCharset in configuration. If you
have access to httpd.conf you
should just comment out this directive, or change it to utf-8.

Regards,
Rimantas
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] inline element directly on body

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2005/10/23, russ - maxdesign <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<...>
> Inline elements [1] and anonymous inline boxes [2] cannot be placed directly
> inside the body, form or blockquote elements when using a strict Doctype.
> They must be wrapped in a block level element.
<...>>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#q7
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#anonymous
<...>

I'd say to lookup information for what can go where one should look at the
corresponding DTD, in this case:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/dtd.html
which says:


(%block;|SCRIPT)+ +(INS|DEL) lists allowed elements. Plus sign at the end
means that BODY must contain at least one block level or SCRIPT element.

%block; entity expands to: 

%heading;: 
%list;:
%preformatted; 

Add there INS and DEL which may occur (plus sign in front) and you have
list what is allowed in BODY.

More info about how to read DTD:

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/intro/sgmltut.html
http://www.w3schools.com/dtd/default.asp
http://www.alistapart.com/stories/readspec
http://www.autisticcuckoo.net/archive.php?id=2005/05/01/art-of-reading-dtd

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] javascripts and standards

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2005/10/16, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jad Madi wrote:
> > I know there is a lot of tutorials out there, but I'm looking for a book,
> >
> > do you recommend any book about coding with Js without breaking standards?
>
> I'd go for Jeremy Keith's new "DOM Scripting" book
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1590595335/103-7301643-7270227

At @media I did ask Jeremy which book would he recommend - his or
"DHTML Utopia...". His advice was that later was for more advanced
developers, and his was more introductionary.
I own "DHML Utopia...", highly recommended.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Placement of company logo

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>  however - I argue that the issue isn't so clear cut if we take into
> account (and are concerned about) user environments like screenreaders /
> text-only browsers: the logos then just become text and, perhaps, should be
> marked-up as such ...
<...>

So shall we get rid of IMG element altogether?

Company's name is text, logo is more. Sure it must degrade to the text in
non visual environment, but it does not hurt to provide richer experience in
not so limited browsers?

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Placement of company logo

[Rimantas Liubertas]

>
> I would argue (without sounding too much like a marketeer or graphic
> designer) that a logo (particularly if it's not just just text in
> a specific typeface, but also includes swooshes, ticks, whatver)
> is more than just a visual representation of text,
> in the same way that a head and shoulders passport photo of a person is
> not just a visual representation of the person's name - and nobody would
> hopefully argue that my photo should be marked up as my name and then image
> replaced with the photo. It's part of the company's identity, and as such
> is content - to a certain extent anyway.
>
> Patrick

Some illustration: http://decaffeinated.org/archives/2005/09/27/logo
Please, don't kick me if this is too much off topic :)

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Placement of company logo

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
> QED: Use image replacement for logos (over h1 heading) where possible!
<...>

I'd say, where necessary...

I gradually arrived at this: Logo is important visual/id/navigation
element of the page, so
I have it in the html as IMG.
It is not header of any kind (imho, no need to argue), so it is not
placed in H1, which is spared
for more appropriate usage — i.e. main header of the page - "About
us", "Products", etc.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/

Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
> Part of the point of web standards in general is that the user and
> user agent have final control of the layout, not the designer. So if
> the page is too wide on a 21 inch monitor, why not reduce the window
> size?
<...>

Two questions - then what are designers for? Maybe just throw the info and leave
all the rest for the users to control? Paint it yourself style of web.

And the second one: why do you assume users WANT control? I want to
get info, not to fiddle with my browser's window size. To quotes Steve
Krug (or his wife): "If something is hard to use I just don't use it
as much".

Sure, web is not print, but our eyes are still the same, and the same
rules apply (at least regarding line length).

So if fixed width is absolute no-no, then there is a good compromise -
elastic layout.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?

[Rimantas Liubertas]

> 2005/9/9, Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Because you CAN (so something) does not mean you SHOULD.

Oh, that should be "do something".

And maybe it is better to go off list if there is something to discuss?
I really do not want to hijack this list attention with irrelevant info...

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2005/9/9, Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> We're still not on the same page. May I ask what your experience is with
> computers?

15 years of programming experience, nine years of professional web
development work,
including work on internet banking application. And that involves xml
and xsl too ;)

On the other hand I do not see how is this relevant. My point is very simple:

Because you CAN (so something) does not mean you SHOULD.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?

[Rimantas Liubertas]

>  I don't think you know what I'm talking about. The information is not for
> humans... obviously. Accessibility isn't just about people. The extra
> information is for, as I already stated, computing devices that parse the
> data. In XML, you really do have that much information every single item
> is surrounded by unique tags that indicate exactly what it is. 

If information is not going to be used by humans at the end of the
road - ditch it.

>  Let me say it again for the reading impaired: in XML, every single
> block-level item is surrounded by unique tags that indicate exactly what it
> is. 

XML gives you means to do that, but that does not imply that "every
single block-level item"
is marked up. And why block level items are so special? I can wrap-up
in the tags whatever I want to. Or I can have whole article stuffed
into single ...

>  And the whole point of X-HTML is to make HTML more like XML.

XHTML _is_ XML... talk XML looking like HTML.

> So that when
> you send an HTML document to a non-human reader, one that can't understand
> text, it can still tell what each element is supposed to be, by how you
> classified and titled and id'ed it. 

How is it going to understand titles and id's if it does not understand text?

It is good to have titles and ids if they will be used for something
meaningful - search,
tagging, transformations etc.

>  Maybe thinking from the computing end is easier for me because I'm an
> electrical engineer. Just think of it this way... computer's don't know
> english. 

So they know nothing, what given tag means. And computers only process
information, the
ultimate consumer is a human being

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2005/9/9, Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<...>
> Thus, we want our markup to have as much information as
> possible, so that every block level element has a title, every object has
> its alternative content, every acronym has its definition, etc. 
<...>  

No, I don't want to have as much information as possible, I only want
relevant and necessary information.

Ending up in 
tiis does not impress
me at all.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
> 
>  Eschewing markup that is not needed today is equivalent to
>  adding presentational decisions to the markup for tomorrow.
<...> 

Only if tomorrow we won't have browsers with advanced CSS support (talk
multiple backgrounds). Oh, we have these today...
Sure, IE is here to stay for a long time, but on the other hand... to
the hell with bad browsers?

And the last point: today I mostly deal with sites assembled from come
blocks. I love to have
these blocks as simple as possible. This way tomorrow I can easily
make them more complicated by adding some extra divs, but I see no
point of doing it today without any need.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Tables - a challenge!

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2005/9/8, Ingo Chao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<...>
> For your specific dead center question, were the pure CSS path shows a
> very known CSS weakness in vertically centering content:
<...>

A very known Internet Explorer weakness, I would say.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Browsers as copilers (was) Barclays standards redesign

[Rimantas Liubertas]

2005/9/8, Chris Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Exactly. I was actually thinking the other day, browsers
> > should be more like compilers... they should refuse to parse
> > incorrect code. Then the enforcement would be on the output
> > end, too.
> 
> Perhaps some clever person could write a Firefox extension that does
> this 
<...> 

When XHTML is used with proper MIME type no extensions are needed.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] web accessibility toolbar

[Rimantas Liubertas]

On 21/08/05, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Everything on a web page is relative to the viewing device, and so px is
> not relative to anything relevant in the text sizing context. At any
> given resolution, px is no less absolute or fixed than cm, in, or pt,
> all of which cannot be resized by IE users.

IE _for Windows_ users. And that's not a problem of px.
Opera has no problem resizing px, not only text but images too.

Shall I quote again? Joe Clark at @media 2005:

"Today, I want everyone in the room to take a vow never to say
anything like that ever again. Do not tell people, or tell yourself,
or even think that there's something inherently wrong with pixel-based
fonts. What there's something inherently wrong with is Internet
Explorer for Windows"

> Whether they are aware or not, they are all humans who cannot read
> something that isn't big enough to see. By sticking not just to relative
> units, but to relative units *and* medium/1em/100% as the size
> dominating your pages, you're making them accessible to absolutely
> everyone.

"absolutely everyone."
Wow.

Regards,
Rimantas,
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] web accessibility toolbar

[Rimantas Liubertas]

On 21/08/05, Joshua Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do we love to use pixels for font sizing because it has any intrinsic
> advantage, or simply because we'd rather be designing for print?
<...>

Print? Is print in pixels? Never heard that. 
My screen is measured in pixels, I view the web on my screen...

And there was a time when pixels were the only good choice:
http://old.alistapart.com/stories/fear4/
Ok, that was long time ago.

> Are these the same designers that don't embrace fluid layouts? (I'm not
> saying that because fluid layouts are intrinsically better, just that
> it's a good thing to have an open mind towards)
<...>

If anything is better than fixed layout it is elastic layout: that
means line length
defined in em's.
How good layout is for reading does not depend on open-mindness of the designer,
it depends on physiology of our sight, and alas tall and narrow is
better than wde
and shallow.

> And, if you don't mean a whole-site zoom like Opera uses, but rather
> just a text-resizing feature (ala Firefox, et al.), then it's really
> worth asking why on earth you were using pixels in the first place,

Why not? In terms of CSS pixels are relative units, just like em and ex.

I'd like to quote Joe Clark presentation at @media 2005:

"Today, I want everyone in the room to take a vow never to say
anything like that ever again. Do not tell people, or tell yourself,
or even think that there's something inherently wrong with pixel-based
fonts. What there's something inherently wrong with is Internet
Explorer for Windows" (
http://www.joeclark.org/atmedia/atmedia-NOTES-2.html )

<...>
> you know that you're ultimately relinquishing control, and all you're
> really doing is irritating your users by not respecting their text-size
> defaults.

So this means we shouldn't touch font-size at all. In theory.
In practice that just means users are not aware of any text-size defaults.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Firefox DOM and whitespace (bug?)

[Rimantas Liubertas]

On 8/4/05, Patrick Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recently ran across an issue (I would call it a bug?) in firefox's DOM.
<...>
> But it seems to me white space should be entirely ignored in the DOM.
<...> Is this a recent Firefox "bug" or proper behavior
> (that must be scripted around...).
> 
> I'd be interested in any other thoughts/ideas.

http://www.mozilla.org/docs/dom/technote/whitespace/

Regards,
Rimantas
-- 
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] IE7 b1 :/

[Rimantas Liubertas]

On 7/29/05, Kazuhito Kidachi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think we should wait for next beta version of IE7. I do understand
> what many web developers feel about Beta 1, but it's still far from
> final product, as Dean said at IEBlog. Molly wrapped up about current
> situation about IE7:
> http://www.molly.com/2005/07/28/thats-why-its-called-beta/

Do we have a choice? 
On the other hand, it is naïve to hope anything more from IE7.
I agree with ppk (quirksmode.org) — IEs rendering engine is beyond fixing.
Somehow I doubt anyone could rewrite and test it before next beta comes out.
Just let hope we will not get any new bugs, and we already know how to deal
with the old ones...

Regards,
Rimantas
-- 
http://rimantas.com/

Re: [WSG] Things I didn't realise, part 126

[Rimantas Liubertas]

On 7/26/05, designer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<...> 
> So this means that support for background fixed works in 5.5, but was
> dropped  in 6, unless it's in quirks. A backward step if ever there was!
> 
> Can this be right?  Or am I too tired . . .

Works perfectly for me in IE6 'standards' mode.
Can you share code?

Regards,
Rimantas
-- 
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Prototype Framework - script.aculo.us

[Rimantas Liubertas]

On 7/22/05, Chris Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> One thing I haven't found yet is a possible alternative to script.aculo.us.
> We've tried to implement some of these effects and they work in Firefox but
> not IE (throws no error). There's no help/support anywhere that I can find
> and documentation is minimum. Does anyone know where there maybe some
> helpful documentation on the Web? Maybe I have to find the right forum? 
> 

I had a problem with script from script.aculo.us and the solution was
to change doctype
so that IE will switch into standards compliant mode. 

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Complete CSS reset

[Rimantas Liubertas]

On 7/5/05, Kenny Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<...>
>I'm going to be teaching some web
> developers CSS soon and would like to teach it from a "complete
> seperation of structure from presentation" standpoint which is hard to
> do when headings are still big, blockquotes are still indented, etc.
<...>

I'd say you are pushing a bit too far, it is not bad to have an idea how
will page look like using only browser default stylesheet, and it does not
make learning separation from presentation any more difficult.

But if you still wish to do so here you may find some info:
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2004/09/15/emreallyem-undoing-htmlcss/

Regards,
Rimantas
-- 
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] input/text random background color in IE?

[Rimantas Liubertas]

On 6/27/05, Vaska. WSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is it that IE turns the background of some input/text elements to
> light yellow?  I can't find any information as to why or how it's doing
> this...and I want to stop it.
> 
> Anybody know what this is about?

My guess is: you have google toolbar installed.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Standards and ADS

[Rimantas Liubertas]

On 6/14/05, Jad Madi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
> Will ADS break web standards in any mean ? such as Google ads, and Amazon  
> ads?

No.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Ten questions for Russ

[Rimantas Liubertas]

On 6/7/05, Ben Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<...> 
> XHTML is useful to me because I can swap out the DOCTYPE and serve it
> as HTML, because it *is* HTML, giving it broad support today while
> giving it a predictable and flexible future. This is, essentially,
> XHTML-compatible HTML 4.01 Strict.

_Only_ because most popular browsers failed to implement SHORTTAG YES.
If that would not be the case we could spares some flame-wars...

Regards,
Rimantas
-- 
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**