Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5

[XStandard]

Brad wrote:
> Omitting the alt attribute as a requirement may have a level of
> appropriateness for sites like flickr
Creating content on the Web that is only accessible by one group of people is 
never appropriate.

Sites like flickr have tools that let photo contributors upload photos in 
batches for convenience. As often happens, convenience for one group of people 
causes inconvenience for another group of people.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xhtml.com

 Original Message 
From: Brad Pollard
Date: 2007-08-30 6:28 AM
>>  If the developers of flickr.com or Photobucket were to implement the 
>> recommendations regarding the omission of the alt attribute within the 
>> current HTML 5 draft what are the potential effects upon the accessibility 
>> of the sites for users of assistive technology such as screen readers? 
>>  Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5 - 
>> http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/articles/altinhtml5.html
> 
> Omitting the alt attribute as a requirement may have a level of 
> appropriateness for sites like flickr (as it currently stands) but flickr 
> should be doing more to encourage their contributors to write a bit more of a 
> story about their images - the extra information would be useful to not only 
> the visually impaired. 
> 
> The inclusion of the alt attribute as a requirement has improved developer 
> awareness of accessibility - we all work with images.
> 
> The alt attribute as a requirement has played, and should continue to play, 
> an important role in accessibility. 
> 
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
> 




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

Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5

[XStandard]

Lachlan wrote:
> the question that still remains is that if allowing the
> alt attribute to be omitted when users don't provide any
> good text isn't the right solution, then what is?  What
> should the spec recommend to use in these cases?
It is not the role of the spec to explain how, if you don't do things well, how 
you can do them badly. The role of the spec is to state what is the correct 
behavior - that is all.

Lachlan wrote:
> What should an authoring tool (like Dreamweaver) insert
> by default when a user adds an image and immediately
> dismisses the alt text prompt?
As a WYSIWYG editor vendor, I can tell you what we do. We prompt the user to 
identify if the image is Decorative or not. So the user makes the decision. If 
the user says the image is not decorative, they MUST submit an alt text before 
the image can be saved. Here are the details of what we do:
http://xstandard.com/en/documentation/xstandard-dev-guide/accessibility/#markup-images

Lachlan wrote:
> What should wikipedia use by default for images used in articles?
> What should sites like Flickr, Photobucket, Facebook, MySpace,
> etc. generate and insert?
> What should forums (e.g. phpBB) or blogs (e.g. Blogger) use?
> What should an email application insert when a user emails an
> image to a friend?
They should do what XStandard does, as explained above.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com




 Original Message 
From: Lachlan Hunt
Date: 2007-08-30 10:52 AM
> Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
>> Brad wrote:
>>> Omitting the alt attribute as a requirement may have a level of 
>>> appropriateness for sites like flickr
>>
>> Creating content on the Web that is only accessible by one group of
>> people is never appropriate.
> 
> That's technically true and even though sites like Flickr certainly 
> should allow users to provide alternate text for their images, the 
> question that still remains is that if allowing the alt attribute to be 
> omitted when users don't provide any good text isn't the right solution, 
> then what is?  What should the spec recommend to use in these cases?
> 
> Whatever the solution(s), there are various different scenarios that 
> should be addressed.  (Note that in all of these scenarios, the 
> authoring tools should allow the author to specify alt text. This is 
> just about what to do when the author doesn't.)
> 
> What should an authoring tool (like Dreamweaver) insert by default when 
> a user adds an image and immediately dismisses the alt text prompt?  (It 
> currently omits the attribute unless the user explicitly selects 
> "" or types in some text.)
> 
> What should wikipedia use by default for images used in articles?  (It 
> currently redundantly repeats the image caption in both the alt and 
> title attributes)
> 
> What should sites like Flickr, Photobucket, Facebook, MySpace, etc. 
> generate and insert?
> 
> What should forums (e.g. phpBB) or blogs (e.g. Blogger) use?
> 
> What should an email application insert when a user emails an image to a 
> friend?
> 




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

Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5

[XStandard]

Designer wrote:
> Even with alt tags, reading that he/she is 'looking' at a
> picture of 'my cat' or 'my birthday party' would be 
> singularly dull, I'd have thought!
The dullness of the alt text is irrelevant. Some people find photo sites dull 
and that is just as irrelevant to this discussion.

Designer wrote:
>Surely, there ARE cases where a purely visual site...
I don't know what is a "purely visual site". Can you please provide an example?

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xhtml.com




 Original Message ----
From: Designer
Date: 2007-08-30 12:51 PM
> Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
> 
>> Creating content on the Web that is only accessible by one group of 
>> people is never appropriate.
>>
>> Sites like flickr have tools that let photo contributors upload photos 
>> in batches for convenience. As often happens, convenience for one 
>> group of people causes inconvenience for another group of people.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Vlad
>> http://xhtml.com
> 
> Let's just keep things in perspective for a moment.
> 
> If a user is unfortunate enough to have eyesight which dictates that 
> he/she has to use a screenreader, it is unlikey that he/she will get 
> much out of flickr anyway. Even with alt tags, reading that he/she is 
> 'looking' at a picture of 'my cat' or 'my birthday party' would be 
> singularly dull, I'd have thought!
> 
> Surely, there ARE cases where a purely visual site can NEVER be 
> presented 'accessibly' in any eaningful way?
> 
> 




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

Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5

[XStandard]

Designer wrote:
> By that term ["purely visual site"] I meant a site which
> has very little (if any) text.
Thank you for the example but I don't understand what is purely visual about 
this site. If the alt text for images was written correctly, a blind person 
using a screen reader or someone who turned image rendering off in the browser, 
would still get information from this site.

The same would apply if 100% of the content on the site were made up of images. 

X/HTML is not a visual technology. So long as Web pages are written in X/HTML 
according to specification, there shouldn't be such a things as a "purely 
visual site".

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xhtml.com





 Original Message 
From: Designer
Date: 2007-08-31 6:50 AM
> Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
> 
>> I don't know what is a "purely visual site". Can you please provide an 
>> example?
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Vlad
> 
> Hi Vlad,
> 
> By that term I meant a site which has very little (if any) text.  See 
> www.kernowimages.co.uk for a (not perfect :-) example. The content of 
> the site is visual as opposed to literal.  There are a lot of such sites 
> around.
> 
> HTH,
> 




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

Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5

[XStandard]

Designer (Bob) wrote:
> Those images just cannot be appreciated by someone who
> cannot see them. No amount of descriptive prose will
> mean anything to to a blind reader.
I've never heard such shit in my life.

Designer (Bob) wrote:
> I personally do use alt tags, every time : but I am
> aware of situations where they are pretty useless.
Bob, I suspect the problem is that you don't know how to use alt text 
correctly. Let me backup my statement with some examples from your Web site.

On your home page:
http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/gam/index.php

You've made your company logo, an information image, into a decorative image:



On this page:
http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/gam/altgam/gwelanmor.php

You've made an images of quote marks, decorative images, into an informative 
images:




You also put one of these decorative images with alt text into the middle of a 
sentence so the sentence now reads like this:

"We have been involved in professional computing for more leftquote graphic 
than 20 years ..."

In another graphic on this page, I don't know what this alt text means:



Bob, the following link may help you better understand the difference between 
decorative and non-decorative images:

http://xhtml.com/en/xhtml/reference/img/

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xhtml.com




 Original Message 
From: Designer
Date: 2007-09-08 1:22 PM
> Rahul Gonsalves wrote:
>> On 31-Aug-07, at 11:08 PM, Designer wrote:
>>
>>> Well Vlad,  whether it fits your conception or not, there is such a 
>>> thing as a site whose prime function is visual. The only 
>>> 'information' in the site I mentioned is what something 'looks 
>>> like'.  If you can't see it, there is nothing  you can do to help that.
>>> It's a sad fact of life I'm afraid.
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> While not quite in direct response to your statement, I thought I'd 
>> share this article from over at A List Apart:
>>
>> http://alistapart.com/articles/revivinganorexicwebwriting
>>
>> Specifically the 'A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words' bit.
>>
>> "I admit to having overlooked alt text. Until a year ago I sniffed at 
>> the idea of creating useful alt text for images. �If a user is blind,� 
>> I reasoned, �what does he care that I have a photograph of the 
>> university tower on my website?�
>>
>> My fellow designer shrugged. �Well, I guess if you don�t really care 
>> about what the image says,� she said slowly, �you really don�t need it 
>> in the first place.�"
>>
>> Best,
>>  - Rahul.
>>
>> ***
>> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ***
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Hi Rahul.,
> 
> Whilst interesting and quite valid, I think the article is not about 
> stuff on web sites that are primarily visual art. What I mean is that 
> the sort of stuff which is purely visual poetry cannot have an alt tag 
> which adds anything other than a 'lable'.  Consider (just as an example) 
> a web site to accompany a show by Mark Rothko, with a handful of images 
> from the show displayed on the site. Those images just cannot be 
> appreciated by someone who cannot see them. No amount of descriptive 
> prose will mean anything to to a blind reader. (In fact, the images lose 
> a lot  compared to their actual presence in the gallery, even for 
> sighted viewers).
> 
> In case you are unfamiliar with Rothko, you can see stuff at : 
> http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/classic1.shtm.
> Using this arbitrary example, I still maintain that a site of  images 
> such as any of these will be of no more value to a blind user for having 
> alt tags, other than to point out  that 'there is a picture there'. Of 
> what, the blind user has no idea because they are impossible to describe.
> 
> I personally do use alt tags, every time : but I am aware of situations 
> where they are pretty useless.
> 




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

Re: [WSG] Accessible Open Source CMS

[XStandard]

This article may be useful:

http://juicystudio.com/article/choosing-an-accessible-cms.php

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
XStandard XHTML WYSIWYG Editor for CMS



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

Re: [WSG] Accessible Open Source CMS

[XStandard]

Tee wrote:
> Personally I don't think there is a fully accessible
> WYSIWYG Editor existed that delivers pure clean code.
It all depends on how you define "fully". XStandard has a keyboard accessible 
interface and most definitely delivers clean, accessible markup.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com




 Original Message 
From: Tee G. Peng
Date: 2007-09-12 7:46 PM
> 
> On Sep 12, 2007, at 7:57 AM, Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
> 
>> This article may be useful:
>>
>> http://juicystudio.com/article/choosing-an-accessible-cms.php
>>
> Hmm, I wonder why they didn't include Modx. The survey was done in May, 
> maybe Modx (v 0.9.5) wasn't quite ready yet! The v.9.6 has improved a 
> lot and we are promised something even sweeter in the next release.
> 
> That said, if you pay attention and practice web standards, it will be a 
> fooled to not  pay attention to certain things from certain people in 
> the web standards groups. The same goes with Modx CMS, if you are 
> looking for a scalable, accessible and web standards compliant CMS that 
> offers many flexible and powerful features through plugins and snippets, 
> it will be a fool that you don't even spend a few minutes to take a look 
> simply because you already have a favorite ones.
> 
> Dive into Modx and make a template (or convert one of your static 
> CSS/XHTML layout) isn't difficult at all. Modx is very user-friendly for 
> web designer however the learning curve is a bit higher (but not more 
> than WP, Joomla, Textpattern,  EE, Plone of the sort in my opinion (I 
> have tested them all)) if one PHP knowledge's is a bit weak (someone 
> like me). Currently Modx lacks a good documentation and the admin 
> interface have room to improved (again! we are promised that they will 
> be changed in the next release);  Many tips and tutorials are hidden in 
> the Forum that need a bit of digging and dedication.
> 
> Modx doesn't control/limit what you want as far as code and 
> functionality concerned; it gives you what you want to have, the way you 
> wanted it.
> 
> Personally I don't think there is a fully accessible  WYSIWYG Editor 
> existed that delivers pure clean code. TINY MCE is the default plugin 
> for Modx which I find difficult to use and a memory eater; I prefer 
> something like textile from Textpattern; someone was making Markdown 
> integration I think. It has a QuickEdit front-end content editor which I 
> like very much.
> 
> Ditto, Jot and Reflect snippets make Modx a wonderful Blog CMS (if you 
> only want a blog). Ditto aggregates articles (aka documents) (this 
> snippet can do a lot more tasks); Jot takes care of comments  and 
> Reflect handles the archives. There is a plugin called PHx (Placeholders 
> Xtended), enable, can add the capability of output modifiers using 
> placeholders, template variables (A very powerful feature of Modx - you 
> no longer limited to Content area) and settings tags. Jot + PHx, you 
> get: moderate, edit, delete comments at front-end. As for the ping and 
> trackback features that bloggers concern about, there is a Trackback 
> snippet, and a Japanese developer wrote a SendPing module :
> 
> [quote]:
> What does this plugin do?
> This plugin is supposed to send pings to various (editable) websites 
> using the XML-RCP library and ping protocol. The goal of this is to 
> update these services that there has been added new content to your 
> website, which will make sure these services crawl your website. This 
> feature is mainly interesting for those who use MODx to blog, but the 
> usage of pings is growing all the time as it's an comfortable way to 
> instantly get updated data for search engines.
> In addition to this it'll also notify Google that your site has new 
> content and your sitemap.xml should be spidered again (exact filename 
> also configurable).
> Also, according to ZeRo's email this currently supports multi domains, 
> which could be useful for the heavy users.
> 
> What doesn't it do?
> It wont make you coffee nor breakfast, sadly, in addition to that it 
> doesn't automatically notify these services as of now; you'll have to 
> run the module manually, ZeRo has planned a plugin to handle this with 
> his next version.
> 
> Trackback allows blogger to send/receive pings to other blogs whereas 
> SendPing will notify blog search engines/social networking sites
> 
> [/quote]
> 
> 
> Many interesting and powerful snippets/plugins/modules that can enhance 
> features, functions and make your live sweeter,  can be found in 'forum 
>  > In Development'.
> 
> Lastly, I almost hate to mention my site as it hasn&#

Re: [WSG] Accessible Open Source CMS

[XStandard]

Tee wrote:
> [XStandard] Mac version finally came out - a very long wait,
> must be at least 2 year
It wasn't a straight port - we were pioneering new accessible UI and few 
features such as authoring definition lists at the same time as we were writing 
the OS X code. Whenever you're first to do something, it's always going to take 
longer. For example, it took us 2 months to build support for authoring 
definition lists (dl). Initially we thought dl should be authored in a similar 
way to ol/ul so we spent a month building the authoring interface that way. 
Then we realized that the user will have a much better experience if dl was 
treated more like tables from an authoring perspective, so we spent a month 
re-writing authoring interface. And that's how 2 years go by.

Here is more info:
http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=4931
http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=7607

Tee wrote:
> thread regarding XStandard porting to Modx and you and the
> developers were going to see if possible. That seems went dead?
We make a special version of XStandard with most of the Pro features available 
to open source CMS vendors free of charge. Here are the details:
http://xstandard.com/en/programs/xstandard-lite-for-partner-cms/
MODx developers started to integrate XStandard into their CMS but we don't know 
what the current status of that project is.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
XStandard XHTML WYSIWYG Editor



 Original Message 
From: Tee G. Peng
Date: 2007-09-12 11:02 PM
> 
> On Sep 12, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
> 
>> Tee wrote:
>>> Personally I don't think there is a fully accessible
>>> WYSIWYG Editor existed that delivers pure clean code.
>> It all depends on how you define "fully". XStandard has a keyboard 
>> accessible interface and most definitely delivers clean, accessible 
>> markup.
>>
> 
> 
> Well, yesterday I finally learned that the Mac version finally came out 
> - a very long wait, must be at least 2 year; after 6 months of waiting, 
> I gave up and completely forgotten as if it never existed. Haven't try 
> the lite version so I will take your word and give a benefit of doubt, 
> but until then I will reserve my insignificant 2 cents :)
> 
> I remember there was a thread regarding XStandard porting to Modx and 
> you and the developers were going to see if possible. That seems went dead?
> 
> 
> tee
> 
> 
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
> 
> 




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

[WSG] Conversation with Opera on Web standards

[XStandard]

Hi,

We have just published a Q&A with Opera regarding their antitrust complaint 
against Microsoft, lodged with the European Commission. The Q&A focus on the 
Web standards aspect of Opera's complaint.

http://xhtml.com/en/web-standards/conversation-with-opera/

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xhtml.com




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

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[XStandard]

HTH wrote:
>...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>you're generating two copies of all of your content
Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate one copy 
of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of HTML as you 
like.

HTH wrote:
> Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
> get done correctly
At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/

Simon wrote:
>Does anyone use XHTML 1.1 and does it provide any benefits?
The benefits are on the content production side. If you author your content in 
XHTML, you can parse it with an off-the-shelf XML parser and make modifications 
to your content en-masse. This gives you control over your content.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
XStandard XHTML (Strict or 1.1) WYSIWYG Editor



 Original Message 
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-12 8:36 PM
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>  Does anyone use XHTML 1.1
> 
> Of the doctypes that my validator Nikita saw in one sample period,
> just slightly over 2% were XHTML 1.1. It's worth noting that most, if
> not all, were sent with the wrong media type.
> 
> http://NikitaTheSpider.com/articles/ByTheNumbers/#doctypes
> 
>> and does it provide any benefits?
> 
> Well, compared to what? HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Transitional or
> XHTML 1.0 Strict?
> 
>>  Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there any
>>  point using right now if your site is 1.0 Strict?
> 
> One big impediment to using XHTML 1.1 is that it must be sent with the
> application/xhtml+xml media type which makes IE6 choke. That implies
> that the server has to do content negotiation in order to send
> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
> application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means you're
> generating two copies of all of your content unless you're willing to
> refuse IE users. Does this sound appealing yet?
> 
> Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to get done
> correctly, even ignoring the cost of generating both two versions of
> one's content.
> 
> Given the extra work required to support XHTML 1.1, there would have
> to be some pretty darn compelling reasons to use it, and those reasons
> just aren't there for most people. There's quite enough people who
> question the use of XHTML 1.0 over HTML (I'm one of them), let alone
> XHTML 1.1.
> 
> About XHTML and media types:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary
> 
> HTH
> 
> 




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

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[XStandard]

Hi Nikita,

> Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
> XHTML 1.1-formatted code
Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template written for a 
different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot:

http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com




 Original Message 
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> HTH wrote:
>>  >...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>>
>>> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>>  >application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>>  >you're generating two copies of all of your content
>>  Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate one 
>> copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of HTML 
>> as you like.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
> what do you mean then by "serve it as any version of HTML"? Are you
> talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
> serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?
> 
> 
>>  HTH wrote:
>>  > Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
>>  > get done correctly
>>  At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
>>  http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/
> 
> My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
> result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
> indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.
> 
> The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
> preference indicators ("q=..."). It's valid for a client to indicate
> that it accept both text/html and  application/xhtml+xml but prefers
> the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
> correctly.
> 
> It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
> it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
> But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
> getting it right most of the time.
> 
> There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
> on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
> involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
> standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.
> 
> Cheers
> 




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

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[XStandard]

Nikita wrote:
> the example you provided isn't valid XHTML.
I think you may have misunderstood. The example in this screen shot:
http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif

.. shows how to embed XHTML 1.1 content into an HTML 4.01 Transitional page 
layout. So the result should be valid HTML 4.01 Transitional.

Nikita wrote:
> the META tag would have to end in a /> and then it
> wouldn't be valid HTML anymore.
Sure it would. It may not be in the spec but it's a de facto standard. Even the 
W3C validator will accept it as valid HTML.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com



 Original Message 
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 7:49 PM
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Nikita,
>>
>>
>>  > Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
>>  > XHTML 1.1-formatted code
>>  Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template written 
>> for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot:
>>
>>  
>> http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif
> 
> Hi Vlad,
> OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't
> valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a /> and
> then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good
> example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch
> between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be
> lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works
> in HTML.)
> 
> The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've
> suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many
> Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this
> list, that seems pretty significant.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> 
>>  Original Message 
>>  From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
>>
>>
>> Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
>>  > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
>>  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  >> HTH wrote:
>>  >>  >...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>>  >>
>>  >>> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>>  >>  >application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>>  >>  >you're generating two copies of all of your content
>>  >>  Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate 
>> one copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of 
>> HTML as you like.
>>  >
>>  > I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
>>  > what do you mean then by "serve it as any version of HTML"? Are you
>>  > talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
>>  > serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >>  HTH wrote:
>>  >>  > Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
>>  >>  > get done correctly
>>  >>  At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
>>  >>  http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/
>>  >
>>  > My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
>>  > result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
>>  > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
>>  > indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.
>>  >
>>  > The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
>>  > preference indicators ("q=..."). It's valid for a client to indicate
>>  > that it accept both text/html and  application/xhtml+xml but prefers
>>  > the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
>>  > correctly.
>>  >
>>  > It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
>>  > it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
>>  > But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
>>  > getting it right most of the time.
>>  >
>>  > There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
>>  > on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
>>  > involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
>>  > standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.
>>  >
>>  > Cheers
>>  >
> 
> 
> 




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

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[XStandard]

Nikita wrote:
> I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will
> not get the result you expect.
Comes back as valid HTML, as I expected. The validator did flag "/>" as 
warnings which it did not a few years back when the example was originally 
created. But W3C's validator warning messages are overly cautious - it still 
warns about the use of BOM which was a problem in the 90's.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com


 Original Message 
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 10:51 PM
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>>  Nikita wrote:
>>  > the META tag would have to end in a /> and then it
>>  > wouldn't be valid HTML anymore.
>>  Sure it would. It may not be in the spec but it's a de facto standard.
>> Even the W3C validator will accept it as valid HTML.
> 
> I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will not get
> the result you expect.
> 
> 
>>   Original Message ----
>>  From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
>>  Date: 2008-05-13 7:49 PM
>>  > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
>>  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  >> Hi Nikita,
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>  > Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
>>  >>  > XHTML 1.1-formatted code
>>  >>  Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template 
>> written for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot:
>>  >>
>>  >>  
>> http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif
>>  >
>>  > Hi Vlad,
>>  > OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't
>>  > valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a /> and
>>  > then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good
>>  > example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch
>>  > between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be
>>  > lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works
>>  > in HTML.)
>>  >
>>  > The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've
>>  > suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many
>>  > Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this
>>  > list, that seems pretty significant.
>>  >
>>  > Cheers
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >>  Original Message 
>>  >>  From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >> Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
>>  >>  > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
>>  >>  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  >>  >> HTH wrote:
>>  >>  >>  >...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>>  >>  >>
>>  >>  >>> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>>  >>  >>  >application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>>  >>  >>  >you're generating two copies of all of your content
>>  >>  >>  Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to 
>> generate one copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any 
>> version of HTML as you like.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
>>  >>  > what do you mean then by "serve it as any version of HTML"? Are you
>>  >>  > talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
>>  >>  > serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >>  HTH wrote:
>>  >>  >>  > Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
>>  >>  >>  > get done correctly
>>  >>  >>  At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
>>  >>  >>  http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
>>  >>  > result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
>>  >>  > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
>>  >>  > indicates t

Re: [WSG] WYSIWYG Editors

[XStandard]

Hi Olajide,

Most of the in-browser editors mentioned are wrappers around the MSHTML control in IE 
which is just a derivative of a 5 year old version of FrontPage. Microsoft is no 
longer supporting or enhancing it. Any editors that have color-pickers or 
font-selectors do not follow best-practices in Web standards.

Some think that if you take HTML 4 generated by WYSIWYG editors, shape, twist, squeeze 
and pull it, you get XHTML. If you want accessible and semantically meaningful XHTML, 
then generated XHTML from the get go. Check out this article:
http://xstandard.com/wysiwyg/

I am one of the developers of XStandard - a standards-compliant XHTML (Strict / 1.1) 
WYSIWYG editor. We offer a free version so that Web standards are in reach of every 
developer. A Mozilla/Firefox version will be available next month.

Here is the link:
http://xstandard.com

Regards,
-Vlad Alexander
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
 Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004

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

[WSG] Help fix Firefox bug and win a Firefox t-shirt

[XStandard]

This is a bit off topic (sorry) but we need your support once again to make XStandard 
for Mozilla/Firefox even better.

The guys at Mozilla Foundation have been real helpful, but Firefox still has a bug 
that makes integrating plug-ins like XStandard a bit of a kluge (compared to IE).  So 
we need to lobby on behalf of Firefox users to get this bug fixed.

The Mozilla Foundation fixes bugs according to a voting system so we are asking for 
your vote to get this bug fixed. Fixing the bug will make integrating plug-ins a 
breeze and reinforce the usefulness of Mozilla/ Firefox, so there are advantages 
beyond XStandard.  We'll also randomly pick 3 people who voted and give them a cool 
Firefox t-shirt.

Our target is to get 100+ votes as quickly as possible.  Timing is critical because we 
want the bug fixed for the release of Firefox 1.0, which is just a few weeks away.

If you can help, please vote to fix bug 188938 at 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=188938  The link to vote is above the 
"Additional Comments" section toward the middle of the page.

Thanks for your support!
-Vlad Alexander
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
 Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004

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

Re: [WSG] about.com's Web standards article

[XStandard]

Hi Aaron,

"wysiwyg monkeys" - Eh?

Nothing wrong with using WYSIWYGs - so long as they are standards-compliant. I tell 
you what - if you can get our WYSIWYG to create non-standards compliant markup, we'll 
get you a Firefox t-shirt. Use the link below, this version will run in Firefox PR1:
http://xstandard.com/misc/beta/x-pro.exe

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com





- Original Message -
From: "Aaron Tate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] about.com's Web standards article


> Quoting john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I thought this was interesting.  Jennifer Kyrnin, About.com's "Web
> > Design/HTML" Guide, wrote an article recently regarding XHTML and CSS.
> > In it, she mentions that she asked one of the About.com developers why
> > their site isn't using Web Standards.  She stated that they had to main
> > reasons for not doing it:
> >
> > 1. Bandwidth - With over 700 sites on About receiving millions of
> > pageviews a day, even 1KB of extra characters on a page can result in
> > huge transfers. By cutting out things like alt tags and quotes they can
> > save a lot of money.
> >
> > 2. Compatibility - The audience for About Web pages is huge, and moving
> > to more modern HTML variants like XHTML 1.0 and CSS positioning will
> > make it more difficult for older browsers to view the pages.
>
>
> The reason for these answers are quite obviously because they don't want to tell
> everyone the real reason which is that there all wysiwyg monkeys and don't know
> any better :-P
>
> *dons flame suit*
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron Tate
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>

**
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] about.com's Web standards article

[XStandard]

Hi Robyn,

Sorry, not yet.

Regards,
-Vlad


- Original Message -
From: "ROBYN BALL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "wsg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 9:38 PM
Subject: RE: [WSG] about.com's Web standards article


> Hi Vlad,
>
> Will Xstandard run on Mac? If not, do you know if there is something similar to
> it that will?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Byn
>
> -Original Message-
> From: info
> Sent: Monday, 11 October 2004 11:22 AM
> To: wsg
> Subject: Re: [WSG] about.com's Web standards article
>
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> "wysiwyg monkeys" - Eh?
>
> Nothing wrong with using WYSIWYGs - so long as they are standards-compliant. I
> tell you what - if you can get our WYSIWYG to create non-standards compliant
> markup, we'll get you a Firefox t-shirt. Use the link below, this version will
> run in Firefox PR1:
> http://xstandard.com/misc/beta/x-pro.exe
>
> Regards,
> -Vlad
> XStandard Development Team
> http://xstandard.com
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Aaron Tate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 7:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [WSG] about.com's Web standards article
>
>
> > Quoting john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > I thought this was interesting.  Jennifer Kyrnin, About.com's "Web
> > > Design/HTML" Guide, wrote an article recently regarding XHTML and CSS.
> > > In it, she mentions that she asked one of the About.com developers why
> > > their site isn't using Web Standards.  She stated that they had to main
> > > reasons for not doing it:
> > >
> > > 1. Bandwidth - With over 700 sites on About receiving millions of
> > > pageviews a day, even 1KB of extra characters on a page can result in
> > > huge transfers. By cutting out things like alt tags and quotes they can
> > > save a lot of money.
> > >
> > > 2. Compatibility - The audience for About Web pages is huge, and moving
> > > to more modern HTML variants like XHTML 1.0 and CSS positioning will
> > > make it more difficult for older browsers to view the pages.
> >
> >
> > The reason for these answers are quite obviously because they don't want to
> tell
> > everyone the real reason which is that there all wysiwyg monkeys and don't
> know
> > any better :-P
> >
> > *dons flame suit*
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Tate
> >
> > **
> > The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> >
> >  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> >  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> > **
> >
> >
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>

**
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] Online HTML text editor

[XStandard]

Hi Jacobus,

The editor in question uses the MSHTML control built into IE. It's an HTML 4 editor 
based on a 5 year old version of FrontPage. This control is no longer updated and as 
far as I know, it is impossible to get it to create standards-compliant markup.

Jacobus, I am one of the developers of XStandard. It is a true standards-compliant 
XHTML editor. A free version is available that you can use in your commercial 
applications. Here is the link for more info:
http://xstandard.com

To see how XStandard generates standard-compliant markup, check out this article:

http://xstandard.com/wysiwyg/

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com


- Original Message -
From: "Jacobus van Niekerk " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 6:17 AM
Subject: [WSG] Online HTML text editor


> Hi all,
>
> Just though I should share this nice open source HTML text editor that
> produces valid XHTML.
>
> http://www.fckeditor.net/
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Kind Regards
> Jacobus van Niekerk
>
> Creative Consultant
> 
>
> web: http://www.catics.com/  |  http://www.freelancecontractors.com
> tel: + 27 21 982 7805
>
> 
>
> This e-mail message is confidential and intended solely for the person to
> whom or the entity to which it is addressed. All the contents and any
> attachments remain the property of Catics Ltd unless so stated. If you are
> not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from reading, copying, using
> or disclosing this message to others. If you received this message in error,
> please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail or by
> telephoning +27 21 9827805 and thereafter delete the message. Catics Ltd
> does not accept liability for any personal views expressed in this message.
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 2004/10/08
>
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>

**
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] Yahoo CSS'ing

[XStandard]

Let's give Yahoo our feedback. They provide a way to receive feedback using the link 
under the search box. True, our comments may fall on deaf ears, or they may not. But 
from my experience, numbers do matter, so I filled out the feedback form and voiced my 
option on their partial move to standards.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
 Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004

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

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

[XStandard]

Hi Kim,

Ian Hickson is _not_ saying XHTML is harmful, he is saying that serving up XHTML with 
the wrong MIME type is bad. At an academic level, he has a point. On a practical 
level, this does not concern most of us because all current (modern) user agents 
(browsers, crawlers, gadgets, etc) will process XHTML if it is served-up as HTML. But 
do try to user the correct MIME type when you can. Here is the definitive word on this 
topic:

http://www.w3.org/International/articles/serving-xhtml/

To summarize this article, it says "XHTML 1.0 can be served as HTML or XML."

Today, the real benefits of XHTML are on the production side. Say your CMS has 1000 
documents and you need to change the "class" name of a  tag in all 1000 
documents. If your content is in XHTML, you can use XML related technologies like DOM 
or XSLT to process all 1000 documents quickly and accurately because XHTML can be 
processed by XML parsers.

Regards,
-Vlad Alexander
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com


- Original Message -
From: "Kim Kruse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:53 AM
Subject: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?


> Hi,
>
> First of all... I'm sorry if this is off topic.
>
> I've been telling people (the few who asked me and through my website)
> to use (valid) xhtml because it a W3C recommendation, it's  device
> independent, (valid) xhtml can be processed by an XML parser, better
> accessibility, less code, faster processing of code in modern browsers,
> forward compatibility etc. I guess that's the standard opinion on xhtml
> or am I completely of track here?
>
> After I participated in a discussion over at the Project Seven newsgroup
> I'm having doubts! The reason is some very well put arguments from among
> others, Al Sparber. One of the arguments was less code. Not even close
> to html 4.01 (See sample 1 below), html 4.01 is also device independent
> AFAIK. Xhtml is not being processed faster than html 4. Actually there
> should be no real reason to use xhtml unless you're using xml.
>
> _Sample 1 - html:_
>  "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd";>
> 
> 
> 
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> Hello World.
> 
> 
> 
>
> _Sample 1 -  xhtml:_
>  "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd";>
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
> 
> 
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> Hello World.
> 
> 
> 
>
> Now what really worries me is this article
> http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml where xhtml is being considered
> "harmfull". Is it harmful ?
>
> Now I would like to know what your arguments would be for using xhtml.
> Not that I can't think for myself... but I'm in doubt if  I'm going in
> the right direction.
>
> I would really like to hear your opinions on this matter.
>
> Kim
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>

**
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] should you refuse to support IE?

[XStandard]

One of the pillars of Web Standards is that "content" should be "Best Viewed With Any 
Browser". This principle is fundamental to Web Standards.

We actually adhere to this principle when we use the CSS "import" directive to hide 
CSS from Netscape 4 so that it's poor support for CSS is not going to interfere with 
reading the content of a Web page. The idea being that everyone has equitable access 
to content even though it looks different in different browsers.

Mark, in my opinion, you can code to the strengths on any browser so long as the 
content is equally accessible to all browsers.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com


- Original Message -
From: "Mark Harwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 7:10 AM
Subject: [WSG] should you refuse to support IE?


> Not commercialy, but personaly on your own blog sites are other little community
> sites?
>
> I've just redesigned my blog (www.phunky.co.uk) and in doing so i decided i was
> not going
> to touch some of the minor issuse that IE has with my site, although it would
> only take
> me a little bit of time to get it 100% in IE aswell why should i?
>
> Ive placed a small disclaimer on my site stateing why im "NON-IE" but my only
> worry is that
> new clients or outsourcing companies may see this and think "The guy hates IE, he
> could be a
> git to work with" (which i am :D)
>
> I just wanna know your view on ditching IE on purpose?
>
> Cheers
> Mark Harwood
> 
> Phunky.co.uk / Xhtmlandcss.co.uk / Zinkmedia.co.uk
>
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>

**
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] Superior Tutorials

[XStandard]

These are good:

http://css.maxdesign.com.au/
http://www.juicystudio.com/tutorial/css/index.asp

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com

- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 2:36 PM
Subject: [WSG] Superior Tutorials


Does anyone know of any superior tutorial sites for CSS.

J.LinasDesign
Graphic Designer
http://www.jlinasdesign.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] UTF-8 ,charset and Standard

[XStandard]

Hi Berry,

Here is an example of a UTF-8 page with non-escaped French characters:

http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=18BF64A8-DF0A-473E-8402-50E9E917E0C1

Are you able to see them in your browser?

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor

- Original Message -
From: "berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 11:57 AM
Subject: [WSG] UTF-8 ,charset and Standard


> Someone can told me why using charset if  we have to write in our page this
> kind of code  é for the accent ?  I understand that the charset give
> the opportunity  depend the langage browser to display page correctly but
> It doesn't give the server the opportunity to display the page the right
> way.  Sometimes, it seems that computer science is still at the stone age.
> It feel me upset that each time I have to introduce a text  I have to
> format it. I understand that we can give command to the server to display
> the text the right way but we don't have always this possibility.
>
> What can we do for keeping our accent in our HTML page?  and  if  I am
> wrong can someone told why I can not see my accent on my page when I use
> UTF-8 charset ?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Berry
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>

**
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] Experimentations in XSLT

[XStandard]

Hi Jonathan,

Most XSLT users process data server-side and then send the result of the 
transformation to the client. This is a safer approach than sending XML and 
XSLT to the client.

XSLT is a wonderful technology. A while back we did some XML and XSLT training 
for the Canadian government. For those that want a hands on approach to 
learning XSLT, here are a few labs. Lab 4 lets you practice XPath and Lab 5 
lets you practice XSLT. Here is the link:

http://belus.com/training/

Also, Jonathan, I had a look at your XSLT. You can optimize it a bit if you 
replace several  with  or .

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
XStandard Development Team



- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan T. Sage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 1:43 PM
Subject: [WSG] Experimentations in XSLT


> Good afternoon 
>
> Recently, after the pursuit of a site that does conform to XHTML 1.1
> and CSS2, I became very interested in the XSL/XSLT language, since my
> site has a XML CMS back end already.  I began to look at ways to cut
> out the PHP step.  My experimentations have proved to be very
> interesting, with 2 caveats:
>
> 1.) Obviously 2 pass processing doesn't work.  Catching PHP embedded
> in the source XML becomes impossible.  At this time, I don't have a
> fix for this.
>
> 2.) Firefox (in fact all gecko based browsers) do not support my
> method of embedding HTML in XML...  results are interesting, but
> expected.  Opera doesn't like this method at all, and IE6 displays
> perfectly.
>
> Since this list is standards based, and I've yet to see any real
> writeup about XSLT and what it is capable of, I figured a would share
> what I found with all of you.  More information about what I did is
> available here:
>
> http://jtsage.com/apathy/archives/2004/12/08/xslt-part-1/
>
> and here:
>
> http://jtsage.com/apathy/archives/2004/12/09/xslt-part-2/
>
> If anyone has any information on how to fix #2, I'd also love to hear
> it.  Hope this proves to be a good read!
>
> ~j
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Sage
> Theatrical Lighting / Set Designer
> Professional Web Design
>
> [HTTP://www.JTSage.com]
> [HTTP://design.JTSage.com]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>

**
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] Length of ALT attribute

[XStandard]

Hi Anura,

According to WCAG20, the ALT text for English should be less than 100 
characters. Here is the link:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test3.html

If memory serves me right, for Section 508, the limit is 80 characters.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor


- Original Message -
From: "Anura Samara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 7:51 PM
Subject: [WSG] Length of ALT attribute


> Is there a recommend length for ALT attributes? Or different
> implementations of ALT attributes between browsers that affect the
> length?
>
> In response to some accessibility testing, I am working on modifying
> some ALT attributes on images used in our online annual report, and as
> you can imagine some of them are a bit long - the longest I have at
> the moment is 53 words/280 characters.
>
> And in case anyone is wondering, yes, we do have long text
> descriptions for each image - the text I have for the ALT attribute is
> essentially the modified first sentence from the long description.
>
> Thanks for any pointers,
>
> Anura
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>

**
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] neat code in A9 search

[XStandard]

Hi Kornel,

BOM is a Unicode standard. Without BOM, applications have to waste resources 
trying to figure character encoding. Here are some FAQs about BOM:

http://www.unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#22

The reason PHP breaks is because PHP does not support Unicode.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor


- Original Message -
From: "Kornel Lesinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] neat code in A9 search


>
>> there appears some funny
>> characters.
>>
>> 
>
> This is another Microsoft "invention" - BOM marker used to recognize UTF-8
> files.
> ByteOrderMarker makes no sense in UTF-8.
> Notepad and other MS-tools silently insert it in all UTF-8 files, making
> them invalid.
>
> This breaks HTML validation, causes trash in some browsers and breaks PHP4
> buffering...
>
> Use Notepad2 for unicode - http://www.flos-freeware.ch/notepad2.html
>
>
> --
> regards, Kornel Lesiński
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>

**
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] Linearizing Tables - Is there a standard?

[XStandard]

Hi Roy,

Think of each cell as a  tag. We use XSLT to make tables linear within XStandard. 
Here is the link to download the XSLT:
http://xstandard.com/download/screenreader.xsl

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com


- Original Message -
From: "RC Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 7:26 PM
Subject: [WSG] Linearizing Tables - Is there a standard?


> Is there a 'standard' way for linearizing tables? Does one move
> across, then down row by row, or down then across column by column?
>
> (Okay, I know this was asked in another thread, but noone bit, so I'm posting it as 
> a new topic.)
>
> Roy
>
>
> *
> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> *
>
>

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

[WSG] Web Standards Charter - An Open Letter To WaSP

[XStandard]

In an Open Letter to WaSP, we are proposing that WaSP should take the 
initiative and lead a campaign to change to how we in the Web Standards 
community communicate Web Standards to newcomers. The proposal involves the 
creation of a Web Standards Charter. Our proposal may affect many of you in the 
Web Standards community, so please do take the time to voice your opinion at 
the following location:

http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/10/04/an-open-letter-to-wasp/

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.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] Avoiding the evil

[XStandard]

Hi Hope,

There is nothing evil about the  element unless one is using it for visual 
effect. In your example, you are using  correctly. For addresses, you might 
want to use the  element instead of .

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com


 Original Message 
From: Hope Stewart
Date: 10/9/2005 6:47 PM
> I'm getting the hang of this whole Web Standards way of designing a website
> and for the most part can totally avoid using . But in the example below
> I'm unsure whether I should in fact avoid using :
>
> All correspondence should be addressed to:
> The Secretary
> Your Club
> PO Box 999
> Anytown VIC 3000
>
> How do others code an address? My feeling is that semantically it should be
> contained within one paragraph or entity of some sort. But if you were using
> a screen reader, how would you differentiate one line from the next?
>
> If I were to use an ordered list with list-style-type set to none, would
> this be semantically correct? Is there a better way?
>
> Hope Stewart
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>


**
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)

[XStandard]

[Lori wrote]
I am new to (trying to learn how) constructing standards conforming web
pages using XHTML and would like to know what HTML editor you folks that are 
light years ahead of me would recommend?

[Lachlan wrote]
Since you're new, you might want to stick with HTML4


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?

Since you brought up MIME types and Hickson's article, let me say that you will 
get a lot more credibility for your argument if you stop referring to an 
article that is based on flawed assumptions.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.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)

[XStandard]

Here is Hickson's reasoning as taken from http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

1. Authors write XHTML that makes assumptions that are only valid for tag soup 
or HTML4 UAs, and not XHTML UAs, and send it as text/html.

2. Authors find everything works fine.

3. Time passes.

4. Author decides to send the same content as application/xhtml+xml, because it 
is, after all, XHTML.

5. Author finds site breaks horribly.

6. Author blames XHTML.

[Rimantas wrote: You know, I have tested those "flawed assumptions" and they 
appear to be true.]

So Rimantas, you have written invalid XHTML, served it as XML and then blamed 
XHTML because your Web site broke. If you had written invalid HTML 4 and some 
User Agents had not parsed it correctly, would you blame HTML 4?

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



Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com


 Original Message 
From: Rimantas Liubertas
Date: 12/2/2005 11:54 AM
> <...>
>> 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
> **
>
>


**
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)

[XStandard]

Lachlan, you have been on this list long enough to know that when you make 
extreme statements such as "since you're new, you might want to stick with 
HTML4" or "IE does not support XHTML", that debate will ensue. This is not what 
newcomers to Web Standards need. A better approach would have been to ask why 
this person needs/wants to use XHTML and if he/she has a good reason to do so, 
give this person advice on how to do it right.

To address your statement that "IE does not support XHTML" - this is not true. 
IE does support XHTML 1.0 - you and I just don't like the level of support IE 
offers. If you serve valid XHTML as HTML to IE, will there be any data loss? 
No! Will any modern assistive technology running on top of IE not be able to 
access the data? No! So, if XHTML is written to specification and to 
compatibility guidelines, IE will support XHTML.

Now, I don't want to give Hickson any more of my attention. But I will say that 
he and his groupies are not interested in teaching people how to use XHTML 
correctly. They are far more interested in inventing HTML 5 that no one now or 
will ever support.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com



 Original Message 
From: Lachlan Hunt
Date: 12/2/2005 5:08 PM
> Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
>> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>>> Lori Cole wrote:
>>>> I am new to (trying to learn how) constructing standards
>>>> conforming web pages using XHTML and would like to know what HTML
>>>> editor you folks that are light years ahead of me would
>>>> recommend?
>>>
>>> Since you're new, you might want to stick with HTML4
>>
>> 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.
>
> My original advice to Lori did not include anything about MIME types or
> any other technical issues, I merely advised him/her that XHTML was not
> widely supported that there's a lot to learn about XHTML before one can
> use it; both points are true and I would expect anyone to give such
> advice to a beginner, before they go off and learn XHTML wrongly.  I
> only brought up all the technical issues in order to defend my position,
> and if I wasn't able to defend my position, I would have lost credibility.
>
>> Do you think this is a healthy environment for newcomers to learn
>> about Web Standards?
>
> Yes.  Why should we attempt to hide the truth from them, especially when
> they're just starting out and they need to lose/avoid any bad habits and
> mistakes as quickly as possible.
>
>> Since you brought up MIME types and Hickson's article, let me say that
>> you will get a lot more credibility for your argument if you stop
>> referring to an article that is based on flawed assumptions.
>
> The assumptions are not completely flawed, and while the conclusion that
> authors blame XHTML may not be true in all cases, substitute "XHTML"
> with "browsers" or anything else commonly blamed by incompetent authors
> other than themselves, and the rest of the assumptions still hold true.
>  But those assumptions you quoted from the article are irrelevant to the
> accuracy of the technical arguments within it.  It is the technical
> arguments you need to dispute, not some introductory prose.
>


**
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

[XStandard]

[Lachlan wrote: IE has no native support for XHTML at all.]
So it's not "native" support but there _is_ support. How can you tell if there 
is support, well, you do test-cases. If one can produce a test-case of valid 
XHTML served as HTML to IE and IE parses it correctly, then there is support. 
Why should we care if IE use an SGML or an XML parser to process the markup? 
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.

[Lachlan wrote: If you serve invalid, ill-formed XHTML to any browser as 
text/html, will there be any data loss?  The answer is the same [No].]
That's not strictly the case, because whenever you write any markup not to 
specification, there is a chance of it being parsed incorrectly, resulting in 
data loss or incorrect association of data. I speak as a software engineer who 
has written parsers, but don't take my word for it. Try this test: take a bunch 
of real use Word documents, save them out as HTML and then run HTML Tidy on 
them. I bet there will be some data loss. That is not to say that Tidy has a 
bad parser (on the contrary); but markup not written to specification is at 
risk for data loss. Even WCAG 2.0 recognizes it in Guideline 4.1.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/complete.html#use-spec

As far as MIME types are concerned, we live in the real world, and until IE 
natively supports XHTML, we need to serve XHTML 1.0 as HTML to IE. We should 
not throw the baby (XHTML) out with the bathwater (IE 6).

User agents come and go, so how one browser parses markup is so trivial in the 
larger scheme of things. What is really important is content. If people write 
content in HTML they are creating legacy data because it is not easily parsable 
from a content management perspective. Content written in HTML cannot easily be 
re-purposed. If you have 1,000 documents and you want to change some markup in 
all of them, it is very difficult to do this if these documents are in HTML. If 
the documents are in XML (XHTML), then this is a trivial task using 
off-the-shelf technologies like DOM/SAX parsers or XSLT. So we need to start 
writing content in XML and if it's content destined for the Web, then XHTML is 
perfect. The next step is: if you write it in XHTML, then why not serve it in 
XHTML (even if right now it's still processed by some current browsers as HTML).

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com







 Original Message 
From: Lachlan Hunt
Date: 12/3/2005 5:50 AM
> Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
>> Lachlan, you have been on this list long enough to know that when you
>> make extreme statements such as "since you're new, you might want to
>> stick with HTML4" or "IE does not support XHTML", that debate will ensue.
>
> So be it.  If there are still people that don't understand XHTML for
> what it is, yet blindly attempt to use it, then the issues need to be
> discussed.
>
>> This is not what newcomers to Web Standards need. A better approach
>> would have been to ask why this person needs/wants to use
>> XHTML and if he/she has a good reason to do so, give this person
>> advice on how to do it right.
>
> Thank you for this very constructive advice, in future I will be more
> careful about how I phrase such things.  But my message still stands:
> XHTML is not appropriate for an inexperienced HTML author to use,
> particularly with the current level of browser support.
>
>> To address your statement that "IE does not support XHTML" - this is
>> not true. IE does support XHTML 1.0 - you and I just don't like the
>> level of support IE offers.
>
> No, the fact is that IE has no native support for XHTML at all.  By the
> same logic you're claiming that it has limited support, then I could
> invent my own FooML language using similar element names and attributes
> to HTML, register the MIME type application/fooml+xml for it to use,
> serve it as text/html and claim that IE has limited support:
>
> http://example.org/fooml/dtd";>
> http://example.org/fooml/namespace";>
> This is a FooML Document
> If I serve this as text/html, then IE will seem to support it.
> I can even use scripts with a MIME type it it doesn't normally
> recognise.
> 
> alert("Hello World!");
> // Since "content-type" is an non-existent attribute in HTML,
> // the MIME type is ignored and tag soup browsers assumes it's
> // JavaScript, even though most current browsers only widely
> // recognise text/javascript.
> 
> 
>
> Would you agree that IE has no support for FooML, or would you claim
> that it has limited support because the result is acceptable

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

[XStandard]

[Lachlan wrote: Since, as you say, it's trivial to use such tools for XHTML, 
it's also trivial to convert from XHTML to HTML 4 on the fly using XSLT or some 
other method.]
You are right, it is trivial to convert XHTML to HTML 4 - it only takes about 
15 lines of XSLT code. I have no objection to people doing this but I would not 
waste CPU cycles for this.

[Lachlan wrote: ...it just requires SGML tools, instead of XML tools]
Now, let's have a race; I'll write code to convert XHTML to HTML using XML 
tools and you write code to convert HTML to XHTML using SGML tools. Sorry, I'm 
kidding; just wanted to illustrate the ease of use of XML tools over SGML tools 
:-)

[Lachlan wrote: I challenge you to name several readily available off-the-shelf 
CMSs that actually do make use of XML tools.]
Here comes shameless self promotion - any CMS that uses XStandard.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com



 Original Message 
From: Lachlan Hunt
Date: 12/3/2005 11:25 PM
> Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
>> User agents come and go, so how one browser parses markup is so
>> trivial in the larger scheme of things. What is really important is
>> content. If people write content in HTML they are creating legacy data
>> because it is not easily parsable from a content management perspective.
>
> Yes it is, it just requires SGML tools, instead of XML tools.  This all
> comes down to using the right tool for the job.
>
>> Content written in HTML cannot easily be re-purposed. If you have
>> 1,000 documents and you want to change some markup in all of them, it
>> is very difficult to do this if these documents are in HTML. If the
>> documents are in XML (XHTML), then this is a trivial task using
>> off-the-shelf technologies like DOM/SAX parsers or XSLT.
>
> The same is true of HTML, it just requires that you use SGML tools to
> process it, rather than XML tools, and SGML tools have been available
> for much longer than XML tools; they're just not so widely deployed
> because HTML is rarely treated as an application of SGML anyway.
>
> Since, as you say, it's trivial to use such tools for XHTML, it's also
> trivial to convert from XHTML to HTML 4 on the fly using XSLT or some
> other method.
>
>> So we need to start writing content in XML and if it's content
>> destined for the Web, then XHTML is perfect. The next step is: if you
>> write it  in XHTML, then why not serve it in XHTML (even if right now
>> it's still processed by some current browsers as HTML).
>
> Such use cases require XML tools, with a CMS that uses such tools to
> guarantee well-formed input and output.  It also requires that the
> author be competent enough to develop and test and a completely XML
> environment, even if it's delivered to the world as text/html.
>
> I do agree that XHTML on the back end does have significant authoring
> benefits for those experienced and competent enough to do so, but we're
> talking about beginners who are unlikely to have such tools at their
> disposal and are extremely likely to be developing and testing in an
> HTML environment.  As I have said many times, learning XHTML that way is
> not a good idea, and it is the responsibility of those of us teaching it
> to make sure it is learned correctly, not incorrectly as you seem to be
> pushing.
>
> Additionally, how many commonly used, off-the-shelf CMSs that claim to
> output XHTML as text/html, or in fact any CMS regardless of its output,
> actually make use of XML tools?  WordPress certainly doesn't, it uses
> string substitutions and doesn't guarantee well-formed output, as do
> others such as MovableType, Blogger, etc.
>
> I challenge you to name several readily available off-the-shelf CMSs
> that actually do make use of XML tools.  As of yet, I have not found any
> that do, let alone guarantee 100% well-formed output.
>


**
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.

[XStandard]

Hi Terrence,

> The summary attribute is best used to describe the
> structure of the table, not to summarise it's content.

Thanks for sharing that with us. Can you please let me know the
source of this info? Anybody else have an opinion on this?

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com


 Original Message 
From: Terrence Wood
Date: 12/21/2005 4:22 PM
> The best web standards thing I learnt in 2005 is:
>
> How to best use the summary attribute for screen reader users:
>
> The summary attribute is best used to describe the structure of the table,
> not to summarise it's content. A longer summary is better according to
> actual screen reader user testing.
>
> How do you know if your summary works, if you don't have any screen reader
> users to test with?
>
> You need two people, someone to read the summary and someone to draw the
> table. Read your summary aloud and see what the other person draws. If the
> result resembles your table then you are on the right track =)
>
> Example from complex financial table:
> summary="There are 8 columns. Column 1 names the appropriation and labels
> the row or rowgroup. Columns 2 through 5 report the numbers for 2004/5,
> where column 2 is Budgeted Annual, column 3 is Budgeted Other, column 4 is
> Estimated Actual Annual, column 5 is Estimated Actual Other. Columns 6
> through 7 report the numbers for 2005/6 where column 6 is Vote Annual,
> column 7 is Vote Other. Column 8 contains narrative on the scope of the
> appropriation. Rows are grouped by appropriation type."
>
> (yep.. "rowgroup" is jargon, but most people got it... you could say
> "group of rows")
>
> HTH, please share your discovery in 2005.
>
> kind regards
> Terrence Wood.
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>


**
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] Strange empty XHTML element issues in IE & FF

[XStandard]

Paul wrote:
> I came across a strange issue last night while converting
> some XML data via an XSL template into XHTML.
You can write your XSLT to output XHTML that follows compatibility guidelines. 
You can use the technique in this XSLT:

http://misc.xstandard.com/wsg/preview.zip

If you need a hand with your XSLT, contact me off the list and I'll be happy to 
help.

Lachlan wrote:
>XHTML should not be served as text/html
Please, give it a rest. XHTML was designed to be backwards compatible, so it 
can be served as HTML if written to compatibility guidelines; unless you know 
something that the W3C XHTML working group doesn't.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.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] Strange empty XHTML element issues in IE & FF

[XStandard]

Lachlan wrote:
> It is just as easy to set , output
> an HTML4 DOCTYPE and not worry about inserting a space
> before '/>' for empty elements.
If you use the 10 lines of re-usable code that I suggested in your XSLT, one 
does not need to "worry" - you have XML in and you have XML out.

> If you're using XSLT, why bother attempting to comply...
It depends on your requirements - right? If you are doing a batch process and 
you plan to store the output before serving it, you would want to store it in a 
parsable form that can be served as is or further processed by other XML 
technologies.

Can I assume that you agree that XHTML 1.0 was designed to be backwards 
compatible to HTML 4 if written to compatibility guidelines?

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.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] Strange empty XHTML element issues in IE & FF

[XStandard]

Lachlan wrote:
>That code [XSLT] your referring too seems to be incomplete.
As I mentioned in previous email, it is to illustrate the technique and not 
meant to be the final script.

Lachlan wrote:
>Fair enough, but do you agree that if there is no intention
>of any further XML processing, then converting to HTML 4
> would be the most appropriate choice?
That is a subjective decision on the part of the developer. There is certainly 
nothing wrong with converting XML to HTML 4 via XSLT server-side to be served 
to Web browsers.

Vlad wrote:
>> Can I assume that you agree that XHTML 1.0 was designed
>> to be backwards compatible to HTML 4 if written to
>> compatibility guidelines?

Lachlan wrote:
>It is clear that that was certainly the intention
Therefore XHTML 1.0 was designed to be served as HTML using text/html MIME 
type. So, can you please, please, please stop making statements like "XHTML 
should not be served as text/html" which sound like they are statements of fact 
whereas they are statements of opinion? Perhaps you can qualify the statements 
by adding something like "In my opinion, it's best to ...".

Lachlan wrote:
> but I don't agree that the HTMLWG were entirely successful
> in doing so.
Not relevant - WWW can be argued as not being "entirely successful".


Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.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] Re: Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[XStandard]

Nancy Johnson wrote:
> I believe best practices are to have all images in
> a directory entitled images

Hi Nancy,

I would not encourage this practice. There are two types of images on Web site 
- "site level" images (mostly used in page layout like logos, buttons, 
backgrounds, etc.) and "document level" images (images used by a given 
document). If you put all images into the "images" folder, it's like putting 
things into a black hole; things go it but never come out. The problem is just 
by looking at the files in the "images" folder, you have no idea which 
documents are referencing them so you are not sure if you can ever delete them.

The best file system way to manage images that I found so far is to create 
folders with the ID of the document and then place all "document level" files 
like images and attachments (pdf, doc, etc.) into these folders. When you 
delete a document, you can then delete the folder associated with this document.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.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] Re: Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[XStandard]

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>Never delete them!  Since "Cool URIs don't change",
> no document should ever be deleted

Lachlan, I'd hate to think that you are giving advice based on an article 
you've read or from the practice of operating a personal blog. So I am going to 
assume that you are basing your advice on years of experience in managing large 
Web sites with hundreds of staff content contributors. So, before we all remove 
the "Delete" button in our content management systems, can you please let us 
know on which projects you have successfully applied the principle of "no 
document should ever be deleted"?

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.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] Re: Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[XStandard]

Hi Richard,

> Can you please suggest a reason why there would be an
> absolute need to delete a file?
That's a good question. Here are some reasons to "absolutely" delete files:

- Legal issues / licensing. Your site may be licensed to use content for a 
period of time and then content needs to be removed. A real life example would 
be an online store that sell 3rd party products. It may use Product X images 
only as long as it sells Product X.

- Branding issues. When a company changes it's logo, slogan, colour scheme, 
etc., Sales and Marketing will want to remove any images with old branding. 
That's the whole point of branding.

- Incorrect/out-of-date information. Informative images can have old pricing 
info, old phone numbers, old organizational charts, old product numbers, etc. 
To reduce confusion, misleading information and errors, old images need to be 
removed.

- Business reasons. You formed a partnership with Company X and it did not work 
out. You probably want to remove any images with both your logos together. "I 
don't think you would want to archive that screw-up!" :-)

So the next logical question is, if none of my current Web pages link to old 
images, then what's the harm in keeping them around if I have extra disk space? 
Well, your Web pages are not the only entry point to your Web site's images. 
For example, go to google.com and click on Images.

Richard, the article Lachlan referred to talks about an ideal world based on 
"frictionless models". Whenever people get involved, you get frictions (in more 
sense than one).

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.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] style attribute depreciated in xhtml 1.1?

[XStandard]

Hi Alan,

>>I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated
>>in xhtml 1.1. Does this  mean that it will eventually be
>>obolete?
It depends on what you mean by "obolete". Deprecated means that it's part of 
the spec but the construct is outdated and its use is strongly discouraged. The 
next version of XHTML is 2.0 which won't get wide acceptance for 5 to 10 years. 
It's in Working Draft status. In it, the "style" is not flagged "deprecated" 
but that can change. Here is what the spec says:

Note: use of the style attribute is strongly discouraged in favor of the style 
element and external style sheets. In addition, content developers are advised 
to avoid use of the style attribute on content intended for use on small 
devices, since those devices may not support the use of in-line styles.
Source: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-styleAttribute.html

>>If so, what do they expect us to do for inline
>>styles because it doesn't always make sense
>>to have everything in an external style sheet.
Can you provide some example of how you want to use inline formatting?

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com




Alan Trick wrote:
> I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated in xhtml 1.1.
> Does this  mean that it will eventually be obolete? If so, what do they
> expect us to do for inline styles because it doesn't always make sense
> to have everything in an external style sheet.
> Alan Trick
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>


**
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] style attribute depreciated in xhtml 1.1?

[XStandard]

Hi Alan,

Both  and  are "bad". How about 
BBtags this:

[important]
[highlight]
[note]
[misc]

then you use this markup:



..

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com



Alan Trick wrote:
> I'm implementing some BBtag-like things on my webste though, and it
> semes to make more sense to have something like [red] create a  style='color:#f00'> instead of a  and
> have a whole bunch of unnecesary styles, and if I want to allow
> something like [span style='color:#123'], that is quite difficult to do
> via classes and external/internal css.
> The only other place I've used it is when I want to randomly generate a
> background-image or something, but that probably better doen with
> internal css
> Alan Trick
>
> Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
>
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated
>>>> in xhtml 1.1. Does this  mean that it will eventually be
>>>> obolete?
>>>>
>>
>> It depends on what you mean by "obolete". Deprecated means that it's
>> part of the spec but the construct is outdated and its use is strongly
>> discouraged. The next version of XHTML is 2.0 which won't get wide
>> acceptance for 5 to 10 years. It's in Working Draft status. In it, the
>> "style" is not flagged "deprecated" but that can change. Here is what
>> the spec says:
>>
>> Note: use of the style attribute is strongly discouraged in favor of
>> the style element and external style sheets. In addition, content
>> developers are advised to avoid use of the style attribute on content
>> intended for use on small devices, since those devices may not support
>> the use of in-line styles.
>> Source: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-styleAttribute.html
>>
>>
>>
>>>> If so, what do they expect us to do for inline
>>>> styles because it doesn't always make sense to have everything in an
>>>> external style sheet.
>>>>
>>
>> Can you provide some example of how you want to use inline formatting?
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Vlad
>> http://xstandard.com
>>
>>
>> Alan Trick wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I just found you that the style attribute is depreciated in xhtml
>>> 1.1. Does this  mean that it will eventually be obolete? If so, what
>>> do they expect us to do for inline styles because it doesn't always
>>> make sense to have everything in an external style sheet.
>>> Alan Trick
>>>
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>


**
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 for shopping carts

[XStandard]

Hi Lisa,

Check this out:

http://www.dpivision.com/

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor




Lisa B. McLaughlin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are there web standards for shopping carts?  I'm looking for a secure cart.
> Perhaps this isn't the best list to post this question, but if there are
> standards regarding carts, you guys would certainly know!
>
> Lisa
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of David Laakso
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 6:18 AM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Does anyone know of a standard Calendar?
>
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:47:47 -, Joey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi everyone, I will have a mini calendar on a site im currently working
>>on,  yet I need something that is customisable, and also web standard.
>
> [...]
>
>>Josef
>
> You might check the archives at http://www.css-discuss.org/ . There have
> been two CSS constructed calendars posted within the past 10 days.
> Best,
> David
>
>


**
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 1.1 Presentation Module

[XStandard]

Hi Chris,

, ,  and  are still in the spec. But it's best practice not 
to use them. Don't know really why they were not taken out or deprecated.

 and  are not presentational. There is a valid need for superscript 
and subscript in markup. For example:

E = mc2


 (horizontal rule) is a misnomer.  is used to separate sections of a 
text from each other. In XHTML 2.0 it will be renamed to . W3C uses 
a hidden  tag on the home page to separate page content from the copyright 
info.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor





Chris Kennon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I thought these elements were deprecated:
>
> Presentation Module
> b, big, hr, i, small, sub, sup, tt
>
>
> But there existence in XHMTL 1.1 specification contradicts this
> assumption. Have the been ostracized by the web development community? I
> can remember  being frowned upon as far back as Dave Siegel
> "Designing Killer Web Sites".
>
>
>
> CK
> __
> "Knowing is not enough, you must apply;
> willing is not enough, you must do."
> ---Bruce Lee
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>


**
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 1.1 Presentation Module

[XStandard]

Hi Patrick,

The following is take from:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/xhtml2.html

Before somebody smart in this list points out that this document is a working 
draft, let me say that (1) there are other sources that say the same thing - I 
don't have time to hunt for them right now and (2) I am only referring to 
sections that talk about the past or have not changed and (3) this document is 
more descriptive than other sources.

[quote:]
Separators: in previous versions of HTML, the hr element was used to separate 
sections of a text from each other. In retrospect, the name hr (for horizontal 
rule) was badly chosen, because an hr was neither necessarily horizontal (in 
vertical text it was vertical), nor necessarily a rule (books often use other 
typographical methods to represent separators, such as a line of three 
asterisks, and stylesheets can be used to give you this freedom). In order to 
emphasize its structuring nature, and to make it clearer that it has no 
essential directionality, hr has been renamed separator.
[/quote]

[quote]
For visual user agents this element [] would normally be rendered as a 
super-script of the text baseline, but on user agents where this is not 
possible (for instance teletype-like devices) other renderings may be used. For 
instance, 2n that would be rendered as 2n on a device that can 
render it so, might be rendered as 2↑(n) on a simpler device.

Many scripts (e.g., French) require superscripts or subscripts for proper 
rendering. The sub and sup elements should be used to markup text in these 
cases.

Examples:
  E = mc2
  Mlle Dupont
[/quote]

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com


Patrick Lauke wrote:
>>Vlad Alexander (XStandard)
>
>
>> and  are not presentational.
>
>
> I beg to differ...they are entirely visual.
>
>
>>There is a valid need
>>for superscript and subscript in markup. For example:
>>
>>E = mc2
>
>
> Again, that's visual markup. It doesn't say "M C squared",
> but "M C and then a 2 that lives a little higher up than
> the rest of the text". HTML was never meant to mark up
> mathematical expressions...that's what MathML is for.
> I've seen  used for referencing footnotes as well...
> so you see it's not that  has
> semantic value, but it's purely describing the visual appearance.
>
>
>
>>W3C uses a hidden  tag on
>>the home page to separate page content from the copyright info.
>
>
> The W3C site is not always the best example for the purest, most
> semantic use of markup, css, accessibility or anything else, so
> - regardless of this actual discussion on  - I wouldn't use
> something found in their markup as an absolute proof.
>
> Patrick
> 
> Patrick H. Lauke
> Webmaster / University of Salford
> http://www.salford.ac.uk
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>


**
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] Valid Code, but Poor Accessibility

[XStandard]

Hi David,

I am not aware of any articles but I can give you some examples. All examples 
below will validate against one doctype or another but will produce less than 
accessible markup:

1. Using tags incorrectly. For example, using  to indent.

2. Using images incorrectly. For example, supplying alt text for decorative 
images.

3. Using formatting to convey meaning. For example, Chapter Title... instead of Chapter Title ...

4. Using layout tables to display tabular data. For example, not associating 
cells to row/column headers.

5. Using pop-up windows via the "target" attribute. For exmaple:  instead of this:



6. Using headers (H1 to H6) incorrectly to generate a meaningless document 
outline.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
Standards compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor



David Nicol wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> This is my first post to the group
>
> I would be very grateful if someone could direct me to an existing
> resource or article addressing the subject of how a validly-coded web
> site can fail to be truly accessible. i.e. why valid code is not, in
> itself, enough to guarantee accessibility.
>
> I've searched extensively for existing articles but have drawn a
> blank. I'm fairly sure, though, that someone must have already covered
> this topic and I hope that someone on this list will be able to point
> me in the right direct.
>
> Thank you for your help.
> Cheers
> David
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

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

[WSG] Using headers for document outline question

[XStandard]

We are building an Outline validator - similar to the "Show Outline" feature in 
http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html The purpose of this Outline validator is 
to help non-technical authors create better structured documents.

I have a question regarding the use of H1 headings. From the spec, it appears 
that multiple H1 headings are permitted on the same Web page. However, is it 
bad practice to do so? Can someone come up with a scenario where multiple H1 
headings are desirable?

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.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] Using headers for document outline question

[XStandard]

Hi Kornel,

Thanks for the example. The W3C outline validator flags this example as missing 
an H2 headings an puts "Other Books" under "Beginning of another book".

Here is your example online:
http://xstandard.com/test1.htm

>>I think blockquote should create it's
>>own "headingspace" :)
Interesting concept!

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com



Kornel Lesinski wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:36:52 +0100, Vlad Alexander
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I have a question regarding the use of H1 headings. From the spec, it
>> appears that multiple H1 headings are permitted on the same Web page.
>> However, is it bad practice to do so? Can someone come up with a
>> scenario where multiple H1 headings are desirable?
>
>
> My favorite quotes
> From books
> Those with headings
>  
>   Beginning of some book
>   ...
>  
>  
>   Beginning of another book
>   ...
>  
> Other books
> ...
>
> I think blockquote should create it's own "headingspace" :)
>


**
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] Opening links in new window with XHTML

[XStandard]

Hi Tat,

You do it via JavaScript. For example:

http://mysite.com"; onclick="window.open(this.href); return false;" 
onkeypress="window.open(this.href); return false;">

This is the most accessible way to do this. If the user agent does not support 
JavaScript or it is disabled, the link will open in the same window.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor


Tatham Oddie wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> I’m trying to have a link open in a new window (like I’ve done a million
> times)… however the validator doesn’t like this.
>
>
>
> If we don’t have the target attribute how are we supposed to do it now?
> Or aren’t we supposed to do it – and leave it up to the use agent?
>
>
>
>
> *This page is **not** Valid XHTML 1.1
> !*
>
> Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML
> parser.
>
> 1.  //Line 121, column 76//: there is no attribute "target"
>
> |.../" title="Australian Alpine Club" target=|**"**|_blank">|
>
>
>
>
>
> Tat
>
>
>
>
>


**
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

[XStandard]

Russ wrote:
[quote]
At the risk of being burned at the stake, I think that unless you are willing 
to serve your pages as application/xhtml+xml with content negotiation, then you 
are probably better off staying with HTML 4.01 at this time.
[/quote]

Let me be the first to gather the kindling :-)

The whole MIME debate started with Ian Hickson. Let me summarize his argument: 
If you author bad XHTML and serve it up as HTML, you won't know that you have 
invalid XHTML and you will blame XHTML when you find out. Sorry, this is not a 
valid argument. This is fear mongering.

For more advocacy along the same line from Ian, have a read of this:

http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xslt

This article advocates the use of Python, Perl, JavaScript, C++ and a DOM 
parser to do transformations over XSLT. This clearly shows that Ian's knowledge 
on the subject is academic. Anyone familiar with the benefits of XSLT, will get 
a good laugh from this short article.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
Standard-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG Editor

**
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

[XStandard]

Hi Joshua,

If you are serving your content as Unicode (UTF-16 or UTF-8), then there is no 
need to use entities. If you do need to escape characters and you are using 
XHTML, then it's best to use their decimal values rather than entities. This 
makes your markup more easily parsable by XML technologies in your CMS (on the 
back-end). For example, instead of   use  

>>It's just always felt dirty seeing certain characters
>>not written in their appropriate entity codes.
Hmmm...that's a very English centric view of the Web ;-)

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor


Joshua Street wrote:
> I've always thought that characters should be marked up with appropriate
> entity codes (for example, accented letters, etc.) in (X)HTML, rather
> than simply pasted in and left for character encoding and the user agent
> to take care of.  I've written a plugin for the WordPress weblog
> software that does this for most characters
> ( http://www.joahua.com/blog/2005/06/04/curlyenc-03 - any discussion
> regarding this email to me offlist or post as comments, please, because
> it's software-related ), but I'm still not sure if it's required.  It's
> just always felt dirty seeing certain characters not written in their
> appropriate entity codes.
>
> Could someone shed any light on this?  Are entity codes redundant, or
> should we be using them where possible?
>
> Kind Regards,
> Joshua Street
>
> base10solutions
> Website:
> http://www.base10solutions.com.au/
> Phone: (02) 9898-0060  Fax: (02)
> 8572-6021
> Mobile: 0425 808 469
>
> Multimedia  Development  Agency
>
>
> 
> E-mails and any attachments sent from base10solutions are to be regarded
> as confidential. Please do not distribute or publish any of the contents
> of this e-mail without the sender’s consent. If you have received this
> e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to the e-mail, and
> then delete the message without making copies or using it in any way.
>
> Although base10solutions takes precautions to ensure that e-mail sent
> from our accounts are free of viruses, we encourage recipients to
> undertake their own virus scan on each e-mail before opening, as
> base10solutions accepts no responsibility for loss or damage caused by
> the contents of this e-mail.
>
> 
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>


**
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

[XStandard]

Alan wrote:
[quote]
That might not be a valid argument but that was not Ian's argument.
[/quote]

Hey Alan,

I think it is. Here are the 6 points Ian makes to explain why he thinks using 
text/html for XHTML is bad. My interpretation follows each point. [source: 
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml]

[Ian] 1. Authors write XHTML that makes assumptions that are only valid for tag 
soup or HTML4 UAs, and not XHTML UAs, and send it as text/html.
[Vlad] Author writes bad XHTML.

[Ian] 2. Authors find everything works fine.
[Vlad] Author does not know it's bad XHTML.

[Ian] 3. Time passes.
[Vlad] tick, tick, tick ...

[Ian] 4. Author decides to send the same content as application/xhtml+xml, 
because it is, after all, XHTML.
[Vlad] Author wants to learn more about XHTML.

[Ian] 5. Author finds site breaks horribly.
[Vlad] Hmmm...

[Ian] 6. Author blames XHTML.
[Vlad] It's not my fault - it must be that evil XHTML.

So, I think my interpretation if Ian's argument is correct.

I think arguments like this don't help Web standards. And articles with 
sensational headlines like "XHTML is dead" is irresponsible and fear mongering.

This is a critical time for Web standards because Web standards are on the 
verge of becoming mainstream. Software vendors are thinking about making their 
products/tools standards-compliant, thanks in part to the efforts of WSG 
members. Don't let your efforts be undermined. Let's keep our eyes on the prize.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor


Alan Trick wrote:
> Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
>
>
>>Russ wrote:
>>[quote]
>>At the risk of being burned at the stake, I think that unless you are willing 
>>to serve your pages as application/xhtml+xml with content negotiation, then 
>>you are probably better off staying with HTML 4.01 at this time.
>>[/quote]
>>
>>Let me be the first to gather the kindling :-)
>>
>>The whole MIME debate started with Ian Hickson. Let me summarize his 
>>argument: If you author bad XHTML and serve it up as HTML, you won't know 
>>that you have invalid XHTML and you will blame XHTML when you find out. 
>>Sorry, this is not a valid argument. This is fear mongering.
>>
>>
>
> That might not be a valid argument but that was not Ian's argument (if I
> remember it properly). Here's what I think he was saying
>
> 1) the whole point of XHTML, is that it is xml and that it requires
> well-formedness
> 2) if you do not server application/xhtml-xml you don't gain that an you
> may as well be using HTML 4.01
> 3) additionally, sending XHTML with an HTML mime type is against
> standards, just as much as having a & instead of &
> 4) because it is against standards, you can't expect standard behaviour
> from browsers. In reality they should all be putting a > after your
> 's and 's and such (but only a one or two browsers actually
> implement that). I know the PHP DOM parser screws up when you give it a
> text/html file with an xhtml namespace.
>
> For all intensive purposes, you file will just be an oddly written html
> file with an incorrect namespace and incorrect dtd. The only time I find
> this is useful is when your sending content to a UA that does not
> support application/xhtml-xml and you don't want to rewrite your
> document for that.
>
> Alan Trick
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.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
> **
>
>


**
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

[XStandard]

Rimantas wrote:
[quote]
Only critical thing for the Web standards is understanding them
[/quote]

That is a short-term view. If you want Web standards to become mainstream, they 
need to be transparent. Web standards need to be built-in to tools so that Web 
designers and Web developers don't need to know anything about Web standards 
and they produce standards-compliant Web sites. This is the prize we should be 
working towards.

Rimantas wrote:
[quote]
Ian's article and fears is based on the way things work in the real life: oh, 
let's try something cool, oh it breaks, to the hell with it, who cares.
[/quote]

Web standards should not be an exclusive club for those that do everything 
right from the get go. We need to welcome everybody to the "club" who makes an 
effort. And if they don't get it right the first time or the second time, that 
is okay!

Rimantas wrote:
[quote]
And XHTML makes it much easier to shoot oneself in the foot.
[/quote]

"Shoot oneself in the foot" - you make it sound so life and death, so dramatic, 
so finite. It's just markup not a day in the emergency room. This is exactly 
the kind of sensational statements that hurt Web standards.

Rimantas wrote:
[quote]
HTML4 is a standard, you know
[/quote]

Yes, a bad standard. The moment you "author" (not serve-up) anything in HTML 4, 
it becomes legacy data. Why? Because you cannot easily parse it. If you have a 
Web site with 10,000 perfectly written HTML 4 documents, how are you going to 
make changes to those documents en-mass? With XHTML or another XML vocabulary, 
this task is trivial.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor


Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
> On 6/7/05, XStandard Vlad Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <...>
>
>>[Ian] 4. Author decides to send the same content as application/xhtml+xml, 
>>because it is, after all, XHTML.
>>[Vlad] Author wants to learn more about XHTML.
>
>
> What?
>
> <...>
>
>>I think arguments like this don't help Web standards. And articles with 
>>sensational headlines like "XHTML is dead" is irresponsible and fear 
>>mongering.
>>This is a critical time for Web standards because Web standards are on the 
>>verge of becoming mainstream. Software vendors are thinking about making 
>>their products/tools standards-compliant, thanks in part to the efforts of 
>>WSG members. Don't let your efforts be undermined. Let's keep our eyes on the 
>>prize.
>
>
> Yes. Only critical thing for the Web standards is _understanding_ them
> (and HTML4 _is_ a standard, you know?), not just using something that
> is cool and much talked about.
> And understanding includes knowing pros and cons and when and _why_ to use 
> each.
>
> What many miss is the fact, that Ian's article and fears is based on
> the way things work in the real life: oh, let's try something cool, oh
> it breaks, to the hell with it, who cares.
>
> And XHTML makes it much easier to shoot oneself in the foot.
>
> So advocate semantics, advocate clean coding, advocate separation of
> content and presentation, advocate standards - not just a bunch of
> letters with that sexy X in front.
>
> 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
> **
>
>


**
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] Reason for leaving

[XStandard]

Hi Duncan,

>>Is there really that many disabled internet users?
Accessibility is about usability for everyone, not any specific interest group. 
Millions of users on the Web don't consider themselves disabled but use 
features that we incorrectly consider as "accessibility" only features. These 
include browsing with larger fonts, using keyboard shortcuts, browsing with 
images turned off, etc.

Discussing Web standards in relation to one specific group like blind users 
using assistive technology is useful because it makes it easier to spot errors 
in your markup and design approach. Also, keep in mind that search engines 
process your Web site just like assistive technologies.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com



 Original Message 
From: Duncan Stigwood
Date: 8/15/2005 1:35 PM
> On 12/08/05, Brian Grimmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>This forum has unfortunately degraded from a useful resource in regards to
>>properly writing code for use by those with disabilities to just another
>>HTML help group...
>>
>
>
> Are the disabed really the main priority when it comes to web
> standards? I'm new to web design as a job and I like the fact I know
> the standards and am on this list because I see it as the niche in the
> market that'll help me be a successful freelancer.
>
> For me coding to standards has been more about being state of the art
> than anything else. Knowing that behind the pretty interface is slim
> and sexy coding.  I always laughed off the disability thing the same
> way you do when there are no spaces in the supermarket car park except
> all the disabled spots.
>
> Is there really that many disabled internet users? I would like to know. :)
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>


**
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] Fallback elements inside Object - should they be available in the DOM?

[XStandard]

Hi Patrick,

Interesting... I think you found a bug in Firefox. The IE approach seems to be 
correct. Content inside the  tag is an alternative to the  tag, 
not an addition to it. Using your example, in IE, the following construct will 
submit "abc" to the server:





In FF 1.5, both "abc" and "def" will be submitted to the server.

In an ideal scenario, you would want to have this construct:





Patrick, this bug should be reported to Mozilla. If you are going to report it, 
can you please CC me on it in Bugzilla.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com


 Original Message 
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: 9/20/2005 11:37 AM
> Possibly a bizarre question, but: currently working on integrating
> XStandard http://xstandard.com in a form, but trying to make it behave
> more reasonably when the plugin is not installed and when javascript is
> off.
> What I discovered is a fundamental difference between IE and Firefox
> (not
> tested other browsers at this stage). Assuming we have the simplified
> code
>
> 
> 
> 
>
> If the plugin is not available, the textarea is used. Fine, no worries
> there. However, when the plugin IS available, IE seems to completely
> expunge the textarea from the DOM, while Firefox seems to remove it from
> the visual display, but still lets you manipulate it via javascript.
> (some may have gathered already, I was hoping to stuff the value of the
> plugin into the existing textarea's value property)
>
> A possibly academic question: which approach is right? Should the
> browser
> not make the fallback elements inside the object available?
>
> I'm coding around the issue, but I'd be curious what people think...
>
> __
> Patrick H. Lauke
> Webmaster / University of Salford
> http://www.salford.ac.uk
> __
> Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
> http://webstandards.org/
> __
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>


**
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] ALPHA Testers Needed

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi Chris,

>>I am still working on the Parsing algorigthm.
If you are on Windows, you can use our free CSS parser. Here is the link:

http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=E784B605-2413-49B1-B17C-20A634CB0150

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
XHTML Strict / 1.1 WYSIWYG editor
http://xstandard.com


- Original Message -
From: Chris Stratford
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 6:02 AM
Subject: [WSG] ALPHA Testers Needed


Hey List,
I am currently developing a little software package which will help you
manage your CSS and your bandwidth.
What it does is it will compress your CSS.

Its not very intelligent so it doesnt do anything really special.
All it will do is Load a CSS file - Parse the file.
It will then allow a few differnt levels of output.

These are:

VERBOSE - Which will include all the comments, full indentation etc...
1st Level Compression - Removes the comments - still full indentation
2nd Level Compression - Removes comments, removes tabbed indentation
3rd Level Compression - Removes comments, removes tabbed indentation, takes
braces up onto a shared line (so they arent on their own lines)
4th Level Compression - Removes comments, removed tabbed indentation, takes
braces up onto a shared line (so they arent on their own lines), removes
line breaks between properties (so all selectors have a line of their own,
with all the properties and values on that line)...
5th Level Compression - Removes comments, removed tabbed indentation, takes
braces up onto a shared line (so they arent on their own lines), removes
line breaks between properties (so all selectors have a line of their own,
with all the properties and values on that line)..., removes the line beween
classes - makes the CSS all on one single line

OR

I could have a bnch of checkboxes where you select what type of output you
want...
eg - indentation etc...


At the moment the program does not compress anything.
I am still working on the Parsing algorigthm.
At the moment some of the problems I have had to over come are:

When there are :'s in Selectors - eg: a.title:hover
When there is no ; on the end of the last value, of a selector
When there are ;'s etc inside comments...

All those have been fixed.
I just need to test a wide variety of files...

If you want to participate please send me some of the weirdest CSS you have,
which is 100% VALID on the W3C Validator.
Thats what I am using as the Caveat for performance... it must first pass
that test before you can compress it...
Otherwise the results will vary a lot from what you expect... :)


Thanks a lot!

- Chris Stratford

BTW - IF there are any programs out there that do this - please let me know!
I want to see them!!! :)
Also this will be 100% Freeware to members of the WSG list :)
I might try and charge a $5 fee for licences in the future...

Thanks again!


*
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] ALPHA Testers Needed

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi Chris,

It's a COM object so it will work in VB with either early or late binding.
Contact me outside the list if you need a hand using the component.

This component converts a CSS to XML and back. Once in XML format, you can
load it into a DOM XML parser (like MSXML) and manipulate CSS properties
through DOM. To convert XML back to CSS, the component uses a built-in XSLT
to do this. Since you will need to minimize white space, etc. you will
probably want to do this step yourself. Here is the link to the XSLT that is
built-into the component. Feel free to modify and use it yourself.

http://xstandard.com/misc/wsg/css.xsl

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
XHTML Strict / 1.1 WYSIWYG editor
http://xstandard.com


- Original Message -
From: Chris Stratford
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] ALPHA Testers Needed


Hey Vlad,

Thanks for the link
I am downloading it now.
Although I already fully coded my algorithm and its working 100% fine so
far...
I could have saved myself an hour or two :S

Is the file a object for VB?

thanks!

Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:



Hi Chris,


I am still working on the Parsing algorigthm.

If you are on Windows, you can use our free CSS parser. Here is the link:

http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=E784B605-2413-49B1-B17C-20A634CB0150

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
XHTML Strict / 1.1 WYSIWYG editor
http://xstandard.com


- Original Message -
From: Chris Stratford
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 6:02 AM
Subject: [WSG] ALPHA Testers Needed


Hey List,
I am currently developing a little software package which will help you
manage your CSS and your bandwidth.
What it does is it will compress your CSS.

Its not very intelligent so it doesnt do anything really special.
All it will do is Load a CSS file - Parse the file.
It will then allow a few differnt levels of output.

These are:

VERBOSE - Which will include all the comments, full indentation etc...
1st Level Compression - Removes the comments - still full indentation
2nd Level Compression - Removes comments, removes tabbed indentation
3rd Level Compression - Removes comments, removes tabbed indentation, takes
braces up onto a shared line (so they arent on their own lines)
4th Level Compression - Removes comments, removed tabbed indentation, takes
braces up onto a shared line (so they arent on their own lines), removes
line breaks between properties (so all selectors have a line of their own,
with all the properties and values on that line)...
5th Level Compression - Removes comments, removed tabbed indentation, takes
braces up onto a shared line (so they arent on their own lines), removes
line breaks between properties (so all selectors have a line of their own,
with all the properties and values on that line)..., removes the line beween
classes - makes the CSS all on one single line

OR

I could have a bnch of checkboxes where you select what type of output you
want...
eg - indentation etc...


At the moment the program does not compress anything.
I am still working on the Parsing algorigthm.
At the moment some of the problems I have had to over come are:

When there are :'s in Selectors - eg: a.title:hover
When there is no ; on the end of the last value, of a selector
When there are ;'s etc inside comments...

All those have been fixed.
I just need to test a wide variety of files...

If you want to participate please send me some of the weirdest CSS you have,
which is 100% VALID on the W3C Validator.
Thats what I am using as the Caveat for performance... it must first pass
that test before you can compress it...
Otherwise the results will vary a lot from what you expect... :)


Thanks a lot!

- Chris Stratford

BTW - IF there are any programs out there that do this - please let me know!
I want to see them!!! :)
Also this will be 100% Freeware to members of the WSG list :)
I might try and charge a $5 fee for licences in the future...

Thanks again!


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







*
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] CMS

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi Geoff,

>>But still it is no guarantee to maintain the sites
>>standards compliance when you hand it over to the client

Actually, we are working hard to address this specific issue. Check out
http://xstandard.com

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
XHTML Strict / 1.1 WYSIWYG Editor



- Original Message - 
From: "Geoff Deering" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 6:45 PM
Subject: RE: [WSG] CMS


> > -Original Message-
> > From: Amit Karmakar
> >
> > When we say CMS we mean Content Management, well in a nut shell
> > managing the content, publishing etc. Content Management and
> > Validation of code are 2 different things.
> > What does the group think?
> >
>
> I think the boundaries are slightly blurred in this area.  It's true that
> CMSs and Code validation are separate in many products.  If a CMS was to
> enforce code validation it would loose acceptance and market share in the
> quirks mode market.  So most CMSs wisely have these features as add in
> modules, plugins, macros, whatever, which facilitates both market needs.
>
> These tools are not so much a requirement for the developers sake, as most
> standards based developers can easily build templates that will validate.
> The problem comes in with users adding content via whatever means the CMS
> facilitates this, and having backend tools to clean this up to meet
> standards based QA.
>
> The minute you have users adding content, and you want to address W3C
> standards and web accessibility, the ATAG guidelines
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ & http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10-TECHS/) come
> into play.  These guidelines are meant to address any type of authoring of
> web sites, including any form with a textarea for posting content.
>
> If you read these guidelines and have a problem with them in the context
of
> web based authoring, I share your dilemma, because there are issues here
> that need to be addressed in ATAG2 to better serve all areas of web
> authoring
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JanMar/0104.html).
>
> It's very difficult, almost impossible to comply with ATAG when deploying
> web based authoring interfaces, but the development community has
addressed
> this issue to a large degree to make our life easier with the backend
tools
> to address these requirements.
>
> Any front end or backend system that allows users to manage content is by
> definition an authoring tool, and if you want to maintain the standards
> integrity of your site then you need to check and make sure that all
> authoring input is parsed, checked, corrected and validated before
> publishing it, otherwise non valid markup can enter your system and your
> page is no longer valid.  Of course this is not much of a problem if you
> don't really care about standards compliant markup.
>
> MT, TextPattern, Drupal, Plone, Cocoon, etc all have modules to manage
this
> requirement.  But still it is no guarantee to maintain the sites standards
> compliance when you hand it over to the client.  If they are allowed
access
> to the engine or templates, then the QA standards compliance component of
> the deliverable is then void (at least that's how I work, cause if you
don't
> state this clearly, they will come back at you for delivering a faulty
> publishing system).
>
> But as far as most of the commercial offerings, like Interwoven Teamsite,
> Documentum, etc are concerned, I don't think they address this issue at
all,
> I could be wrong, I don't know them that well, but I have used them
briefly
> and didn't see anything to address these issues.
>
> Geoff
>
> *
> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> *
>
>


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

[WSG] Your Mozilla Vote Counts!

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Mozilla fans, we need your help. The Mozilla version of the
standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor "XStandard" is almost ready.
Unfortunately, Mozilla's new scriptable plug-in API announced in June has a
bug that needs fixing before XStandard can be released. The Mozilla
Foundation prioritizes bugs using a voting system. So the makers of
XStandard are asking for your vote to get this bug fixed so they can release
XStandard for Mozilla. What's in it for you?  You get XStandard Lite, a free
standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor that runs in Mozilla.  If you can
help, please vote to fix bug 254280 at
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=254280

Regards,
-Vlad Alexander
XStandard Develpment Team
http://xstandard.com


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
 Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004

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

Re: [WSG] Restricted HTML Editor?

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi Simon,



I am on the XStandard dev team. I am not going to do a sales pitch on this
list but I will say that XStandard was designed for the requirements you
described. There are no font-selectors or color-pickers to hide because
these tools create non-standards compliant markup, hence these tools are not
part of the XStandard. Check out this article to see what XStandard does to
make markup accessible and standards-compliant:



http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=58E6C3F7-E5DF-414F-8AA5-4C8BD2BEFE2A



Also, you might want to validate the Web sites of WYSIWYG editor vendors to
see if their sites validate:



http://validator.w3.org



Regards,

-Vlad

XStandard Development Team

http://xstandard.com

- Original Message - 
From: "Simon Chalmers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 9:32 PM
Subject: [WSG] Restricted HTML Editor?


> I recently spent heaps of time building a site using css and
> standards-compliant HTML pages.  Now I need to hand back content editing
> to a pool of "unwashed" users. They like changing fonts, adding bright
> colours, bold, underline, centering etc whenever they get the chance.
>
> Ideally I'd like to be able to give them an HTML form to edit from,
> which contains a cut-down HTML WISIWIG editor that allows them to add
> only:
> - bold block of text (which I can access & render as "" ),
> - plain text (which I can access & render as "",
> - links
>
> There were posts on this mailing list a week or 2 back re HTML WISIWIG
> editors, but most give away too much control to the user and produce
> non-css-based HTML.
>
> Its a big site (130,000+ pages) and I can't expect to maintain it all
> myself. What do others in this situation do?
>
>
> Simon Chalmers
> Analyst/Programmer
>
> Level 8, ITS
> Parliament House
> Macquarie Street
> SYDNEY NSW 2000
>
> Ph: 02 9230 2943
> Fax: 02 9230 2358
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Web: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au
>
>
> NOTICE -
> This e-mail is solely for the named addressee and may be confidential.
> You should only read, disclose, transmit, copy, distribute, act in
> reliance on or commercialise the contents if you are authorised to do
> so.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify
> the sender by e-mail immediately and then destroy any copy of this
> message.  Except where otherwise specifically stated, views expressed in
> this e-mail are those of the individual sender. The New South Wales
> Parliament does not guarantee that this communication is free of errors,
> virus, interception or interference.
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
>  Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
> To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
 Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004

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

Re: [WSG] Standards-based PHP tutorials for beginners...

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi Michael,

This is what you are looking for:

http://www.juicystudio.com/tutorial/php/index.asp

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Michael Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 7:39 PM
Subject: [WSG] Standards-based PHP tutorials for beginners...


> ... a bit much to ask?
>
> Just wondering if anyone knew of any such tutorials. Those on php.net
> seem as if they were written by C programmers wanting to learn php. Yet
> those on webmonkey are so old that they still use things like:
>
> echo "Hi there";
>
> Makes it very hard to help HTML newbies (who've learned standards-based
> html from the start) learn PHP!
>
> The best I could find was:
>
http://www.free2code.net/tutorials/programming/php/4/Introduction_to_PHP.php
>
> Any suggestions welcome!
> -Michael
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
>  Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
> To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
 Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004

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

Re: [WSG] WYSIWYG Editors

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi Mike,

We'll do some research on this and I'll get back to you. If anyone got some
suggestions, email me off the list - thanks.

Regards,
-Vlad


- Original Message - 
From: "Michael Kear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: [WSG] WYSIWYG Editors


> G'day Vlad,
>
> Thanks for posting about your XStandard editor. I've been looking at your
> product off-and-on for a while, and never got round to getting a hold of
it
> and using it seriously.
>
> One thing worries me though ... with WIndowsXP SP2 supressing all active-X
> controls except Microsoft's, how do you get around this?
>
> I was developing a flash app the other day, and every time I went to
preview
> it on my own PC, IE blocked it and I had to click 3 places to tell IE that
I
> wanted to allow my own app to run on my own PC.
>
> Cheers
> Mike Kear
> Windsor, NSW, Australia
> AFP Webworks
> http://afpwebworks.com
> .com,.net,.org domains from AUD$20/Year
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Vlad Alexander (XStandard)
> Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2004 10:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [WSG] WYSIWYG Editors
>
> Hi Olajide,
>
> Most of the in-browser editors mentioned are wrappers around the MSHTML
> control in IE which is just a derivative of a 5 year old version of
> FrontPage. Microsoft is no longer supporting or enhancing it. Any editors
> that have color-pickers or font-selectors do not follow best-practices in
> Web standards.
>
> Some think that if you take HTML 4 generated by WYSIWYG editors, shape,
> twist, squeeze and pull it, you get XHTML. If you want accessible and
> semantically meaningful XHTML, then generated XHTML from the get go. Check
> out this article:
> http://xstandard.com/wysiwyg/
>
> I am one of the developers of XStandard - a standards-compliant XHTML
> (Strict / 1.1) WYSIWYG editor. We offer a free version so that Web
standards
> are in reach of every developer. A Mozilla/Firefox version will be
available
> next month.
>
> Here is the link:
> http://xstandard.com
>
> Regards,
> -Vlad Alexander
> XStandard Development Team
> http://xstandard.com
>
>
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
>  Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
> To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
 Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004

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

Re: [WSG] Tables, is it Standard?

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi Olajide,

Tables are standard but like any markup, it needs to be used correctly.
Tables can be used for layout (this practice is discouraged) or for storing
tabular data. If you are using tables for layout, make sure to only use the
following tags: , , . If you are using data tables, you need
to use at least , ,  and  and then associate the cells
('s) with headers ('s). One way to do this is by using the following
attributes  and . At the following link, you
can listen to how a table may be processed by assistive technologies if it
is correctly and incorrectly marked up. Go to section "Incorrect Use Of
Tables"

http://xstandard.com/wysiwyg/

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com



- Original Message - 
From: "Olajide Olaolorun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Web Standards Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 9:55 AM
Subject: [WSG] Tables, is it Standard?


> Hi, I would like to know if Tables is standard. You see, I have been
> into web standards for some time now nut I still use Tables and would
> like to know if it is standards
>
> Thanks
>
> -- 
> Personal:
> www.olajideolaolorun.com
> www.empirex.net
>
> Business:
> www.tripleolabs.com
> www.tripleostudios.com
> www.tripleo.biz
>
> Projects:
> www.uniformserver.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
> **
>
>


**
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] Is XHTML harmful?

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi Tom,

Yes - the markup will validate as HTML. Here is an example:

http://xstandard.com/html4.htm

Validate it using:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fxstandard.com%2Fhtml4.htm

Check out an article I wrote about this a while back:

http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/webtech/120303-1.shtml


Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Tom Livingston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?


> Please forgive any ignorance on my part...
> 
> So I can copy the guts of an XHTML document in all it's splendor with 
> s et all and paste it into an HTML document and all is dandy?
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Livingston
> Senior Multimedia Artist
> mlinc.com
> 
> Get FireFox >  http://spreadfirefox.com/community/?q=affiliates&id=0&t=1
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 6, 2004, at 11:25 PM, Chris Bentley wrote:
> 
> > There is no difference between the semantics or the accessibility of 
> > HTML4.1 and XHTML1.0.
> 
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> 
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
> 
> 

**
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] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi Mark,

Did you know that your statement "XHTML is currently a waste of time. It
might be useful in a few years" promotes the use of IE? It certainly doesn't
promote the use of standards-compliant XHTML browsers like
Mozilla/Firefox/Opera. For the first time, these browsers have a
technological advantage over IE and you are missing it. Do you happen to
work in Redmond by any chance?

Anyway, too many people focus on browsers and their ability to consume
XHTML. Today, the real benefit of XHTML is on the content production side.
Without XHTML, the average Web developer could not parse content for
re-purposing because HTML makes parsing difficult. Here is an example of how
some of our customers build Web sites (it would be impossible for them to do
this if the content was in HTML): they have a single script (PHP, ASP, etc)
that provides the layout of the page and sucks-up content from a data store.
Depending on the type of document (FAQs, press release, staff list, etc),
they run an XSLT to re-format the content.  For example, for FAQs, the XSLT
goes through each header, anchors it and creates a list of hyperlinks at the
top of the page to jump to each FAQ. You can only do this if you author your
content in XHTML.

Mark, you made a bold statement, so I will counter with a statement just as
bold - Authoring content in HTML immediately devalues that content, because
as soon as you capture content in HTML it become legacy data, difficult to
parse and difficult to re-purpose.

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
The first standards-based XHTML 1.1 WYSIWYG editor


- Original Message -
From: "Mark Stanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:03 PM
Subject: RE: [WSG] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml


> Hi
>
> I haven't bothered messing with this yet - but Simon Jessey has:
>
> http://keystonewebsites.com/articles/mime_type.php
> http://jessey.net/blog/2003/sep/
>
>
> > I have created an index.xhtml file, changed the content in it
> > to "application/xhtml+xml" ( > content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=iso-8859-1" /> ) and
> > uploaded it.
>
> Meta tags are almost useless for this sort of stuff. HTTP Headers are
where
> the action is.
>
>
> > Now, IE is served the xhtml file as text/html and Mozilla is
> > served application/xhtml+xml. Is it?
> >
> > You can test both files with IE and Mozilla, for instance:
> >
> > http://excellentsite.org/index.shtml
> > http://excellentsite.org/index.xhtml
>
> Seems to be working - Firefox is getting served application/xhtml+xml for
> the second link.
>
>
> > Could it be this way? If yes, why doesn't IE load the xhtml page ?!
>
> IE has broken mime support.
>
>
> Don't take this too seriously but I'm just going to add my usual
disclaimer:
>
> + XHTML is currently a waste of time. It might be useful in a few years.
>
> + All the features that XHTML adds are currently supported so badly by
> user-agents at large that there is almost no point in using it.
>
> + HTML4.1 is the right choice for web documents at the moment.
>
> This argument has been outlined at length on this list so search the
archive
> at: http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg%40webstandardsgroup.org/ if you are
> interested in more details.
>
> However having said that I think the approach you have taken (serving as
xml
> mime type where possible) is one of the more responsible ones at the
moment.
> I still don't think its worth the effort though.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Mark
>
>
> --
> Mark Stanton
> Technical Director
> Gruden Pty Ltd
> Tel: 9956 6388
> Mob: 0410 458 201
> Fax: 9956 8433
> http://www.gruden.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
> *
>
>


*
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] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi woric,

>>My advice for keeping presentation and content
>>seperate, which is what vlad is promoting here,
>>though he doesnt know that, is to author in XML
>>and then use XSLT to create the HTML for you.
I think we're saying the same thing. XHTML is XML and the latest XHTML spec
(with the exception of maybe 4 tags) cleanly separates formatting from data.


>>One of the main benefits of using XSLT is that it
>>seperates the presentation [the HTML] and the content
XSLT is a wonderful language but it has nothing to do with separating
presentation from content.  XSLT does one thing and one thing only - it
transforms in input document into an output document based on rules.

>>For example, write the faq in Xml:
>>
>>The answer goes in here.
>>
There is nothing wrong with this. But when you write semantically rich
content, you end up using a dialect of XML like DocBook or XHTML.

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com
XStandard XHTML WYSIWYG editor

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml


> > Depending on the type of document (FAQs, press release, staff list,
etc),
> > they run an XSLT to re-format the content.  For example, for FAQs, the
> XSLT
> > goes through each header, anchors it and creates a list of hyperlinks at
> the
> > top of the page to jump to each FAQ. You can only do this if you author
> your
> > content in XHTML.
>
> Sorry to be a pedant, but this statement is misleading and in my opinion,
> not very good advice.
>
> Using XSLT to transform a document is not limited to XHTML, and using
XHTML
> as the source for XSLT is taking one step forward so you can take 2 steps
> backwards. One of the main benefits of using XSLT is that it seperates the
> presentation [the HTML] and the content, which wont happen if you use
XHTML.
>
> My advice for keeping presentation and content seperate, which is what
vlad
> is promoting here, though he doesnt know that, is to author in XML and
then
> use XSLT to create the HTML for you.
>
> For example, write the faq in Xml:
>
> 
> The answer goes in here.
> 
>
> Then apply a XSLT script to transform this into a valid Html document.
>
> woric
>
> PS: I do this on every website I make. See http://xsltfilter.tigris.org
>
> *
> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> *
>
>


*
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] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi Mark,

I am new to the group and if this topic has been discussed ad nauseam - I do
apologize for raising it again.

See my response to ActiveX here:
http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1021

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com


- Original Message -
From: "Mark Stanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 8:17 PM
Subject: RE: [WSG] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml


> Oh dear... I didn't want to get into this argument again.
>
> > Did you know that your statement "XHTML is currently a waste
> > of time. It might be useful in a few years" promotes the use
> > of IE? It certainly doesn't promote the use of
> > standards-compliant XHTML browsers like
> > Mozilla/Firefox/Opera. For the first time, these browsers
> > have a technological advantage over IE and you are missing
> > it. Do you happen to work in Redmond by any chance?
>
> Rubbish. I use Firefox as my primary browser & actively encourage the use
of
> it and other "standards compliant" browsers where ever I can.
>
> My mention of IE was a specific answer to a specific question about IE. My
> comment "XHTML is currently a waste of time. It might be useful in a few
> years" has almost nothing to do with IE.
>
> Please read http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml.
>
>
> > Anyway, too many people focus on browsers and their ability
> > to consume XHTML. Today, the real benefit of XHTML is on the
> > content production side.
>
> Sorry - I thought that thread was about which mime types to use in serving
> XHTML to browsers? Content production is not relevant on this list. Please
> use the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list if you which to discuss content
> production and the like.
>
>
> > Without XHTML, the average Web developer could not parse
> > content for re-purposing because HTML makes parsing
> > difficult. Here is an example of how some of our customers
> > build Web sites (it would be impossible for them to do this
> > if the content was in HTML): they have a single script (PHP,
> > ASP, etc) that provides the layout of the page and sucks-up
> > content from a data store.
> >
> > Depending on the type of document (FAQs, press release, staff
> > list, etc), they run an XSLT to re-format the content.  For
> > example, for FAQs, the XSLT goes through each header, anchors
> > it and creates a list of hyperlinks at the top of the page to
> > jump to each FAQ. You can only do this if you author your
> > content in XHTML.
>
> We're off topic here, but HTML 4.1 is only ever one step away from XHTML
> (HTML Tidy & jTidy) so your argument about things being impossible if
you're
> using HTML is incorrect. People have been taking this approach (markup ->
> transform -> publish) to content management for years (see DocBook, SGML,
> etc...), it nothing new.
>
> Some alternative approaches:
> http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/199905/threads.html#00229
> http://www.google.com/search?&q=wordML+XSL
> http://www.google.com/search?&q=docbook+XSL
>
> XSLT is very useful, but it relies on XML not XHTML. So maybe "You can
only
> transform content with XSLT if you author your content in XML." might be
> more accurate?
>
> I do understand your point and in the situation that you have mentioned
> XHTML is useful. But this is only one specific scenario and its not
relevant
> to the original post.
>
>
> > Mark, you made a bold statement, so I will counter with a
> > statement just as bold - Authoring content in HTML
> > immediately devalues that content, because as soon as you
> > capture content in HTML it become legacy data, difficult to
> > parse and difficult to re-purpose.
>
> Ok, maybe I should have said HTML 4.1 is the right choice for *delivering
> web documents to web browsers* at the moment. I don't care what format or
> systems people use to author and manage their content - I am simply
talking
> about what should be reaching browsers.
>
>
> > Regards,
> > -Vlad
> > XStandard Development Team
> > The first standards-based XHTML 1.1 WYSIWYG editor
>
> I like your product very much (I downloaded a copy the other day), but I
> find it a little ironic that you point the finger at me saying I work for
> Redmond when your product based entirely on Microsoft's ActiveX
technology.
>
> I don't want to argue about any of this, its been done 100 times before &
I
> certainly don't want to get personal. The only reason I am writing this
> email is that I expressed an opinion and I don't particular

Re: [WSG] Unwanted Visitors

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi Jaime,

You are not alone. This is just another form of marketing (spam) that
companies use. It's not only adult sites - we have been spammed this way
from some of our competitors.

Regards,
Vlad Alexander
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com


- Original Message -
From: "Jaime Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WSG - CSS List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 1:45 PM
Subject: [WSG] Unwanted Visitors


> I think this is OT. Please forgive me.
>
> Today I went to check my site statistic for fun and have a look at the
> Links from an external page (other web sites except search engines)".
>
> I saw a couple of suspicious links being displayed theresuch as
> companies who has nothing to do with web designing and adult sites.
>
> There is only one adult site being displayed in Feb and for the month of
> March..the number of unwelcomed links shoot up to at least 10.
>
> Why is that so? Am I being used for something I do not know of? Not
> knowledgeable in this site statistic area. Should I just ignore?
>
>
> With Regards
> Jaime Wong
> ~~
> SODesires Design Team
> http://www.sodesires.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
> *
>
>


*
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] in Win IE6?

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi Christopher,

No. But you should probably serve up XHTML 1.0 Strict to IE and 1.1 to
Mozilla/FireFox/Opera.  Here is the link on how to do this:

http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=16A6EBD1-9EEC-4611-98C8-C0F6234B9737

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
XHTML 1.1 WYSIWYG editor
http://xstandard.com


- Original Message -
From: "Christopher M Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 10:34 AM
Subject: [WSG]  in Win IE6?


> Hello!  I was just beginning to read through the W3C's docs on XHTML 1.1
and
> noticed the following example they provide of an XHTML 1.1 strict
document:
>
> 
>  "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd";>
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" >
>   
> Virtual Library
>   
>   
> Moved to http://vlib.org/";>vlib.org.
>   
> 
>
> While they do state the XML declaration is not required, they urge its
use.
>
> My questions is: doesn't the XML declaration send IE6 (Windows) into
"quirks
> mode" if it's present?  It seems like I read that recently.  Can anyone
> verify?
>
> Thanks!  Great list!  Very informative!
>
> Christopher Kelly (GM22)
> phone: 309-763-7069
> State Farm Insurance Companies - disAbility Support
>
>
>
>
> *
> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> *
>
>


*
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] WYSIWYG editor

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi David,

One way to pick the right editor for your needs is to go to the Web sites of
WYSIWYG vendors and check the quality of the code they generate for their
own Web site. If their Web pages aren't validating with W3C to the standard
you need to meet, then their WYSIWYG editor won't do the job for you. Here
is the link to the W3C validator:

http://validator.w3.org/

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com


- Original Message -
From: "David Gironella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WSG (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 6:26 AM
Subject: [WSG] WYSIWYG editor


> Anybody know a WYSIWYG editor but that generate XHTML with CSS?
>
> Thk
>
> David Gironella Casademont
>
> *
> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> *
>
>


*
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] WYSIWYG editor

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi David,

Check out http://xstandard.com

This is a XHTML (Strict or 1.1) WYSIWYG editor. It generates clean,
accessible and standards-compliant markup. Formatting is done through
external or embedded CSS.

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com


- Original Message -
From: "David Gironella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WSG (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 6:26 AM
Subject: [WSG] WYSIWYG editor


> Anybody know a WYSIWYG editor but that generate XHTML with CSS?
>
> Thk
>
> David Gironella Casademont
>
> *
> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> *
>
>


*
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] WYSIWYG editor

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi Neerav,

Check out this article we are working on about WYSIWYGs and "dirty" markup:

http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=58E6C3F7-E5DF-414F-8AA5-4C8BD2BEFE2A

Some things the article talks about will only be available in the next point
release of XStandard due out shortly, such as correct icons for the
blockquote toolbar buttons. Editors build around the MSHTML control (a
derivative of FrontPage) in IE are HTML 4 editors that use clean up routines
to achieve what looks like XHTML. XStandard was build specifically to be a
standards-compliant XHTML (Strict / 1.1) editor from the ground up.

Neerav, if you have some feedback on XStandard, we want to hear from you.
Virtually all the new features in the upcoming point release of the editor
are a result of feedback or feature requests. We also recently started a
forum on http://accessifyforum.com strictly for the purpose of improving the
accessibility of the markup XStandard generates - thanks to all the members
of AccessifyForum for constructive feedback.

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com



- Original Message -
From: "Neerav" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] WYSIWYG editor


> While not enabled by default. you can set
> http://www.fredck.com/fckeditor/ to output XHTML and also use css
> styles. I found it easier to use than Vlads Xstandard
>
> --
> Neerav Bhatt
> http://www.bhatt.id.au
> Web Development & IT consultancy
>
> Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Check out http://xstandard.com
> >
> > This is a XHTML (Strict or 1.1) WYSIWYG editor. It generates clean,
> > accessible and standards-compliant markup. Formatting is done through
> > external or embedded CSS.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -Vlad
> > XStandard Development Team
> > http://xstandard.com
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "David Gironella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "WSG (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 6:26 AM
> > Subject: [WSG] WYSIWYG editor
> >
> >
> >
> >>Anybody know a WYSIWYG editor but that generate XHTML with CSS?
> >>
> >>Thk
> >>
> >>David Gironella Casademont
> >>
> >>*
> >>The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> >>See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> >>for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> >>*
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> > *
> *
> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> *
>
>


*
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] Amaya ---- Piece Of Crap...

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

I think XStandard will meet most of your criteria - stable, user-friendly,
lightweight, standards-compliant and FREE. As far as platform independent -
maybe sometime in the future :-)

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
XStandard - XHTML 1.1 WYSIWYG editor



- Original Message -
From: "Tonico Strasser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Amaya  Piece Of Crap...


> Chris Stratford wrote:
>
> > Hey Everyone...
> > Is it just me, or is the Amaya validator a piece of junk??
> > Does anyone here use it at alll???
>
> Amaya isn't a validator, is it? It's a quite good XHTML editor IMHO. I
> wrote some structured documentation with Amaya, the keyboard shortcuts
> are nice. I quess it's not ideal from an usability point of view, but
> it's just a testing environment :)
>
> Because the output is 100% valid you can process it easiliy, with XSLT
> or import it in your favorite CMS.
>
> I wish there were a similar stable, user friendly, lightweighted,
> platform independent, standard compliant and free XHTML editor.
>
> Tonico
>
> --
> Tonico Strasser ?:-)
> http://Tonico.FreeZope.org
>
> Contact_Tonico at Yahoo dot de
> Check out http://www.WebProducer.at
> *
> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> *
>
>


*
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] standard compatible richtext editor?

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi Alex,

As far as I know, we are the only producers of a standards-based XHTML
(Strict / 1.1) WYSIWYG editor. It's called XStandard and there is a free
version. For more information check out:
http://xstandard.com

Here is an article that might help you evaluate WYSIWYG editors.
http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=58E6C3F7-E5DF-414F-8AA5-4C8BD2BEFE2A

A new point release is coming soon. You can see new features here:
http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=A38C2E89-9CBC-4329-AA3B-2581DAF6C2FF

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.com



- Original Message -
From: "alex 'fanatique' thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 3:43 PM
Subject: [WSG] standard compatible richtext editor?


> Hello everybody,
>
>   wow. second posting today but this one is more general. i'm looking for
a
>   webstandard compatible richtext editor for my cms (sthg like this
>   http://richtext.sourceforge.net/ ).
>
>   it should be integrated into the browser and offer the possibility
>   to switch between code and styled view - ah well, and maybe for
>   free...
>
>   did one of you stumble across something like this?
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  alex  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> *
> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> *
>
>


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

[WSG] Banners promoting standards-based products and services

[Vlad Alexander \(XStandard\)]

Hi,

We've created some hard-hitting pro-standards banner ads on our site.   The
banners promote our product too, but if you want to use the ideas behind our
banners to create your own, using humor more might be a good way to promote
your own standards-based products and services.  Here is the link to see the
banners:

http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=65AD7677-2F9B-4488-B91F-8FD5D56A53F7

Regards,
-Vlad
XStandard Development Team
http://xstandard.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
*