Re: [WSG] Firefox 3 and script tag 'problems'

2008-06-26 Thread Alastair Campbell
Ken McInnes wrote:
 Most browsers will render this OK, BUT Firefox 3 WILL NOT.
 It just renders the page with nothing on it. :-(

I had a similar issue a fwe years ago in IE6, where a script tag with
nothing inside (i.e. script .../script) would cause IE6 to show a
blank screen, although I think it was in a particular environment, as
it doesn't always happen.

Re: Element Minimization and Empty Element Content
Doesn't that mean the validators should catch it?

Cheers,

-Alastair


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



Re: [WSG] HTML special characters coding

2008-06-26 Thread Alastair Campbell
I still use encoded characters in attributes sometimes, for example in
alt text that needs quote makr. I can't think of an example off hand,
but I assume entities are still needed for that?

-Alastair


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



Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Alastair Campbell
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The question wasn't about keeping file extensions in URIs it was about what
 file extension the file should have, which I am sure you will agree is still
 required as the server needs to know if it is an html, php, css, js, etc
 file doesn't it.

Nope, on Apache at least (and I would assume IIS) you can set the
mime-type text/html for any file extension, or no file extension. I
would guess that you can probably set it for a whole directory or
filepath as well.

You could do something like this in the Apache config to set the
default mime type used [1]:
DefaultType text/html

You could even fool people into thinking you were running static files
when you're actually using PHP [2]:
AddHandler php5-script html

Apache is a very powerful beast in that regard.

-Alastair

1] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/core.html#defaulttype
2] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_mime.html#addtype


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



Re: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-27 Thread Alastair Campbell
 if styles are used correctly, RTF files can be used well by screen readers.

RTF doesn't use 'styles' in the way that Word (or HTML) does, it
applies presentation tags, the semantic based styles that Word has
(e.g. Heading 1) are not there. There's an example on the Wikipedia
page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Text_Format

Word is more accessible for a screen reader user (assuming you have
it), and also a much better basis for creating an accessible PDF,
(which also are more capable of being accessible).

 Also, section 2.3 of the World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination
 Act Advisory Notes... suggests that RTF is considered acceptable.

It's the difference between available and accessible. If you're doing
a simple text document, then there's little difference. If you use
images, tables, columns or headings, you can't do an RTF document that
would meet WCAG 1 at double-A.

-Alastair


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



Re: [WSG] Hanging indents

2008-03-21 Thread Alastair Campbell
 The document could be made available for download as a PDF and also RTF (for
 accessibility purposes).

Joe Clark pulled me up on this, and after checking into it, it is
something of a myth that RTF is good for accessibility. RTF has no
structure and (if I remember correctly) no means of including alt
text.

A PDF could be done accessibly, as could a word doc (Andrew
Kirkpatrick posted on this recently:
http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility/2008/03/reference_card_for_accessible.html),
but RTF is only good if you want plain text. Every OS includes
something that can open word (=2003) docs, at least as well as an RTF
equivalent would do.

It is akin to a universality vs accessibility arguement, except that
.doc is pretty much as universal these days.

Cheers,

- Alastair


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



Re: [WSG] premature to test/worry new site for IE8?

2008-03-21 Thread Alastair Campbell
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Last time with IE 7, there was no problem and none of the sites I
  coded for her break when  IE 7 came out. I think this version
  targeting thing really got people worry.

Um, could you just not add the meta tag saying 'treat as IE7'?

-Alastair


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



Re: [WSG] Spolsky on IE8 flag

2008-03-18 Thread Alastair Campbell
 Far too long, and his point is buried somewhere...

It is long, but I like the headphone analogy that (I think) makes it
easier to understand the 'economics' of the situation. (Does it count
as economics when the products are free?)

I was very surprised by the IE teams decision to make the new
rendering the default, until I read Joel's thoughts on what they might
do before release.
IE is part of the MS ecosystem, and impacts Windows (e.g. will a
corporate client update to Vista if their intranet doesn't work with
IE 7/8), and things like Sharepoint (e.g. will IE8 render Sharepoint
sites ok).

On the Sharepoint note, either MS will have to re-do how it produces
front end code (a mammoth undertaking) or ensure that IE8 renders it
as IE7. How useful is that long term?

I'm very glad that MS started again with the rendering engine, and
they have made incredible progress given that fresh start, but I do
worry that it could have nasty consequences for IE (and web standards)
if the change to other parts of the ecosystem is too severe.

-Alastair


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



Re: [WSG] generated source

2008-03-18 Thread Alastair Campbell
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 6:00 AM, Michael MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I like the view generated source in the Web Developer Firefox plugin,

  Firebug is very handy too 

For html it will display as HTML (without closing slashes) as that is
how Firefox interprets things sent as text/html. The .xhtml technique
is new to me, although it makes sense considering the difference for
application/xml docs.


  btw does anyone know how to get Firefox 2 plugins to work in Firefox 3 beta?
  for some reason I can't seem to use both at the same time on the same
  machine..

You need to make sure you're using different profiles for each,
otherwise it will keep trying to update the same profile. For most
users this makes sense, but for techies testing Firefox, make sure you
run different profiles for each. (The technique under Running
Multiple Firefox installs still works:
http://alastairc.ac/2006/07/firefox-2-beta-released/ )

Cheers,

-Alastair


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



Re: [WSG] Spolsky on IE8 flag

2008-03-18 Thread Alastair Campbell
Patrick H. Lauke  wrote:
  Reference implementation for content marked up in HTML is the W3C
  validator...again, confused about CSS/DOM?

Fair point, but his audience is general technical rather than
(knowledgeable) web developers. If you put his post in context of
general programming (pre and post web) I think the general point is
that there isn't a reference for how the whole shebang works together.

You can't write a regular web pages (with styling) and have a
references for how it should look according to the standards. Other
programming languages (I believe) do, such as the GUIs for Java and
VB. Of course, some people *effectively* do this by developing in one
browser, which isn't a good idea in the web context.

  The fact that those 8 billion pages actually work fine in all other
  browsers, who all seem to have managed to agree on an interpretation of
  CSS/DOM by working together, ironing out test cases, etc, doesn't
  matter? Are MS joining the party?

I'm not drinking MS kool-aid (if that's the phrase), but I thought the
reason that CSS 2.1 was taking so long was that there were areas of
disagreement and 'grayness'? The IE team recently submitted hundreds
of test cases for CSS 2.1, so yes, they seem to be joining the party
(barring the evil http://annevankesteren.nl/2008/03/ie8-bad ).

The other browsers have the advantage that developers / authors aren't
trying to work around them, so can just have strict / almost strict
and quirks modes. IE doesn't have that luxury:
http://webkit.org/blog/155/versioning-compatibility-and-standards/
we sympathize with the tough road that the IE team has to travel to
achieve a high degree of standards compliance, we haven't really
experienced the same problem. The IE team has mentioned severe
negative feedback on the IE7 release, due to sites expecting standards
behavior from most browsers, but IE6 bugs from IE.

  So they're standard, plus some crap thrown in for non-standard IE. And
  they do browser-sniffing or take advantage of CSS hacks, rather than
  progressive enhancement, conditional comments, and any other modern
  practices.

Which leads nicely onto:

  Mmhmm. All you smug idealists are laughing at this newbie/idjit. The
  consumer is not an idiot. She's your wife. So stop laughing. 98% of the
  world will install IE8 and say, It has bugs and I can't see my sites.

It is mostly because so many sites use crap, non standard, backward
thinking techniques that so many wives (I actually think mums would be
a better example, except mine uses Opera) would have trouble with the
betas.

  It's also worth remembering that the MS releases these early betas
  EXACTLY because currently sites break badly with its new rendering
  engine.

Very true, and again, I'm glad they have started again with the
rendering engine and done away with the multi-headed hydra (thanks
Ingo) of hasLayout. However, I Joel is right about whether they will
continue with having the new rendering as default.

If at the end of the beta period lots of sites (like Microsoft.com,
like Sharepoint sites, more than 10% of the top 200 that they use as
reference) still break, they will either:
1. Revert to IE7 rendering as the default (most likely), or
2. Change the user agent string more significantly (complicated).

Personally, I'd like to see the second option explored. Perhaps it
could be solved by using something like:
Mozilla/4.0 (MS-IE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1)
rather than:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1)

However, assuming the second option doesn't work (or isn't used for
whatever reason), I think changing the default rendering would be
better for having an IE that will follow standards long term.

  I still say the article is extremely long, confused and confusing.

I agree it could have been done in less, and didn't speak directly to
a web-dev audience. However, I think it was a good 'programmers guide'
to the issue, and had a good reading of MS.

Cheers,

-Alastair


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



Re: [WSG] how to set table column widths with CSS

2008-01-11 Thread Alastair Campbell
On Jan 11, 2008 7:29 AM, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 col:first-child {width:10em;}
 col:first-child+col {width: 5em;}

From memory, I don't think col has children as such, it's quite a headache:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=915

However, a combination of col HTML attributes and the td:first-child
ones should work across IE and Firefox (and I assume Safari  Opera).

Cheers,

-Alastair


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



Re: [WSG] Simple question on forms

2007-12-05 Thread Alastair Campbell

Michael Horowitz wrote:
 tabindex determines the order in which people tab through a form.

The default tabindex simply follows the source order, as mentioned before.

I would recommend not specifying the tabindex unless you are prepared
to spend a lot of time doing everything, as it overrides the default.
For more:
http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter08.html#h3-5325
http://www.netmag.co.uk/zine/the-accessibility-test/www-huntforproperty-ie

There are two main methods of going through a page with a screen
reader, with 'next' (arrowing in JAWs) or with the tab, through links
and form controls. When those two don't match, it's pretty confusing.

Kind regards,

-Alastair


***
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] Simple question on forms

2007-12-05 Thread Alastair Campbell
Michael Horowitz wrote:
 tabindex determines the order in which people tab through a form.

The default tabindex simply follows the source order, as mentioned before.

I would recommend not specifying the tabindex unless you are prepared
to spend a lot of time doing everything, as it overrides the default.
For more:
http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter08.html#h3-5325
http://www.netmag.co.uk/zine/the-accessibility-test/www-huntforproperty-ie

There are two main methods of going through a page with a screen
reader, with 'next' (arrowing in JAWs) or with the tab, through links
and form controls. When those two don't match, it's pretty confusing.

Kind regards,

-Alastair


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



Re: [WSG] Re: SilverLight

2007-11-05 Thread Alastair Campbell
On 10/31/07, Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Let me know if i can help in anyway shape or form as It's not all that bad

Sorry to pick up on this so late, but have you got any information on
the next version from an accessibility point of view?

Version 1 appears to be a non-starter from an accessibility point of
view, to quote a thread on MSDN:
In 1.0 we don't even have the concept of focus or tabbing to elements
(such as the element you styled to look like a button). In 1.1. we
will.
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=994143SiteID=1

I've found this to be accurate in a couple of tests, as you can tab to
an input, but not interact with any other elements via the keyboard
(with or without screen reader).

From the nature of the framework I would assume this can be improved,
but have you considered things like ARIA to provide guidance on how to
improve things? Alternatives, control of the tab order, 'roles' 
'states' for objects and how refreshes are dealt with come to mind.

Kind regards,

-Alastair


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



Re: [WSG] References for best web video practices

2007-10-22 Thread Alastair Campbell
On 10/17/07, Roberto Gorj√£o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Could you point me to some of your bookmarks or other
 resources about it?

http://www.d.umn.edu/itss/support/Training/Online/webdesign/accessibility.html#multimedia

and

http://www.skillsforaccess.org.uk/

-Alastair


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



Re: [WSG] source order

2007-10-09 Thread Alastair Campbell
Mike Brown wrote:   
 I think the article http://usability.com.au/resources/source-order.cfm
 *is* the prevailing wisdom in this matter :)

Which is to say, some testing with a very specific design was used
(with very little content or navigation), and that's all we have to go
on so far.

Steve Green wrote:
 A lot of people spout opinions on this, but it is all conjecture,
 and most of the people making assertions in favour of having
 content first have no experience of user testing

I have experience with testing, and tend to put content first.
Unfortunately it's not so simple, there are several related issues,
depending on the design, and mostly affecting those using non-visual
access:
1. What the user is used to (learning effect).
2. What is most effective, without the learning effect.
3. How easy it is to work out what the site does.

Long term, 2 should take precedence, and 3 should help people get over
1. Otherwise we'd still be using tables for layout and asterisks for
null alts.

 People expect sites to behave the way they always have done
...
 Why change what is not broken? I don't hear any users saying they
 want content first.

Kind of like Neilsen's people always use other sites more than
yours, although it's not the sort of thing that users think of or
complain about explicitly.
The problem is that things could not improve if that is *always*
followed, and for many sites, content first makes more logical sense
for linear access. (Screen reader, small screen, text browser etc.)

With the (major) caveat that good headings and skip links will make
more difference than the source order, content first makes more sense
if you assume that people go to a site for content.  It's the
equivalent to the visual aspects of good navigation - it doesn't get
in the way.

The bottom line is that in testing, people tend to learn a site and so
long as it's consistent and (concisely) sign-posted, people will get
around. Almost all of our sites  templates have content first, and
that's worked.

The ones that have navigation at the top have a horizontal navigation
that needs to push the content down when text is expanded, and I guess
we'll have to wait until the CSS3 layout module before it's worth
experimenting with source order for that type of design :-/

-Alastair


***
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

2007-08-30 Thread Alastair Campbell
Does the HTML working group have to take into account accessibility guidelines?

What I mean is, does it have to make alt mandatory because WCAG (any
version) does?

-Alastair


***
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

2007-08-30 Thread Alastair Campbell
Lachlan Huntwrote:
 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?

The problem is differentiating between ignorant and intentional lack
of text. At the moment a missing alt is generally an indicator of
ignorance (not knowing or caring to add alternative).
A null alt either means the author knew enough to not want to put an
alternative in (e.g. decorative/spacer image), or it was automatically
put in for them.

 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
 empty or types in some text.)

I think that's been answered from an accessibility point of view:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-AUTOOLS/#check-no-default-alt

-Alastair


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



Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

2007-08-08 Thread Alastair Campbell

Rob Kirton wrote:
I was informed that they had a far better idea in the pipeline.  I'm 
not holding my breath...


As others suggested, full page zoom is likely to be it, but I hope they 
include Opera's fit-to-width option, or something to the same effect. 
Otherwise it won't be any better than IE7's:

http://alastairc.ac/2006/11/browser-zoom-comparison/

Cheers,

-Alastair



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



Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

2007-08-08 Thread Alastair Campbell

Stuart Foulstone wrote:

Computer screens may have steadily improved (and so has the research) but
human evolution doesn't change so fast that HCI research becomes outdated
in 13 years as you suggest.


Was the decision on default font size actually based on research, or was 
it just what they went with at the time? In any case, the main point is 
that the decision is old (consider Felix's research into increasing 
DPI), and unlikely to be changed.


Rob Kirton wrote:
 I realise that screen real estate  is precious, however I think we all
 agree this to be a very important feature.  To most users it is a moot
 point whether or mot these buttons perfrom text resizing or indeed
 page zoom.

Agreed, although I do think the 'fit to width' option (perhaps as 
default) is important, otherwise it won't appear to 'work'. I.e. the 
person increases the zoom, and has to scroll horizontally. without 
fit-to-width, this will happen on sites that use a liquid layout, or 
pixel based widths on smaller screens.


Kind regards,

-Alastair



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



Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

2007-08-07 Thread Alastair Campbell

Rick Lecoat wrote:

Do we /know/ that the majority of people have their
default text set according to their requirements, or is it ...

 they don't know that there's any other way?

From lots of usability testing (including with people with visual 
impairments), and training people (not on browsers, but asking out of 
curiosity), I'm quite confident that few people know about changing the 
font-size.


This was backed up not long ago by a very disappointing study that 
showed less than 1% of people visiting the site had changed their font 
settings. (Disappointing in terms of the results.) I thought I'd 
bookmarked it, but hopefully someone else did?


Felix Miata wrote:
 The only reasonable current assumption is that the users'
 defaults are exactly as they want and/or need them to be.

I find it a strange belief that people must use the defaults because 
they choose to. There are many scenarios where people stick with even 
silly defaults, either through ignorance or not caring enough to change 
them. (Or changing the wrong mechanism, as someone mentioned people 
changing screen resolutions.)


You could take Jacob Neilsons finding that small fonts were the most 
popular 'mistake' as proof that people don't know how to change their 
settings, otherwise they wouldn't have cared. The popularity of 
font-sizing widgets on sites is further evidence of users not knowing 
about font-size settings/zooming. (Not that I agree with doing that [1]).


Even IE allows you to override the font settings, but it makes so many 
sites look rubbish that most people wouldn't.


We are caught in something of a catch-22, as so many sites use small 
fonts compared to the default, or simply reducing the default because so 
many people don't know how to change it.


Felix Miata wrote:
 the web browser makers who made the default defaults equal
 to what ordinary users prefer

That decision was from about 13 years ago, surely? Unless I missed 
something earlier in the thread, I doubt they did any research into it 
then, and it would be out dated now if they did. Now they can't change 
the defaults because it would break the web. Personally, I wouldn't 
complain about that, but I would suggest that increase/decrease text 
buttons are in the default browser chrome.


Kind regards,

-Alastair

1] http://alastairc.ac/2007/05/user-agent-improvements/




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



Re: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not

2007-07-21 Thread Alastair Campbell

On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:23:44AM +1000, Webb, KerryA wrote:
 If that's an efficient and effective way to publish a document,
 let them do it - providing the PDF is properly marked up.

Is there an organisation that systematically produces well marked up 
accessible PDFs? I train people in how to do accessible PDFs, and I've 
yet to come across an organisation willing to do it properly. (And to be 
fair, it tends to take a shift in how the organisation publishes in 
general.)


On a side note, now that Adobe is putting the PDF format through the 
standards process, should we now consider it a 'web' standard?


Kind regards,

-Alastair



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



[WSG] Re: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser!

2007-07-20 Thread Alastair Campbell
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:23:44AM +1000, Webb, KerryA wrote:
 If that's an efficient and effective way to publish a document, let them
 do it - providing the PDF is properly marked up.

Is there an organisation that systematically produces well marked up accessible 
PDFs? I train people in how to do accessible PDFs, and I've yet to come across 
an organisation willing to do it properly. (And to be fair, it tends to take a 
shift in how the organisation works.)

On a side note, now that adobe is putting PDF through the standards process, 
can we now consider it a 'web' standard?

Kind regards,

-Alastair


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



Re: [WSG] Back to the Future

2007-06-13 Thread Alastair Campbell

Chris Taylor wrote:

Thanks for the input everyone, it looks like old-school tables with inline
styles is the way to go, unfortunately.


You may be right, if it were me, I'd install an old copy of Frontpage or
dreamweaver and use that... matching the era of the tool with the era of
the browser will probably make it less work for you.

Cheers,

-Alastair




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



Re: [WSG] Safari now on Windows

2007-06-12 Thread Alastair Campbell

On 6/12/07, Gary Barber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I know its beta, but at least apple could have a link to an online bug
reporter..


Wasp posted this: http://webkit.org/quality/reporting.html


From the sounds of it, they may get a few entries...


-Alastair


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



Re: [WSG] WCAG Samurai Errata

2007-06-11 Thread Alastair Campbell

Steve Green wrote:

The process for commenting is a bit shambolic, and it is not clear that
comments are particularly welcome. There is no stated process, so people
have been commenting in various places in the blogs


If you check the various blogs, you'll see Joe has been following them
closely (probably via technorati), and he will take in comments by email
as well (his name @joeclark.org).

I've also been looking through things, and will post some more comments
on the reviewsamurai blog.

Cheers,

-Alastair






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



Re: [WSG] WCAG Samurai Errata

2007-06-11 Thread Alastair Campbell
Oops, Joe's just posted the comments email address: samurai at the 
domain wcagsamurai.org


Apologies,

-Alastair



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



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

2007-05-29 Thread Alastair Campbell

On 5/25/07, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Not causing validation issues does not make them fine; even if the
vast majority of user agents don't respect it, img / in an HTML
document means An image element followed by a greater than sign.
The HTML specification explicitly advises authors to avoid them:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.7


Interesting, but I don't understand how that section applies?

How do you get from these constructs technically introduce no
ambiguity in that section, to a self-closed image being An image
element followed by a greater than sign?

Especially since this case is explicitly shown in the compatibility
guidelines (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_2).

Is Vlad from Xstandard wrong when he said: if an authoring tool
generates XHTML in a backwards compatible way, then there is no need
to have a configuration to produce either HTML or XHTML. The
backwards compatible XHTML will work in HTML and XHTML templates.
(http://alastairc.ac/2007/02/wysiwyg-editor-spec-checklist/#comment-12741 )

Or is this a case of it doesn't quite comply to part of a spec but
doesn't make any difference in practice? If it isn't, perhaps the
W3C's HTML validator should be updated?

Cheers,

-Alastair


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



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

2007-05-29 Thread Alastair Campbell

On 5/29/07, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Because, in an HTML document, an XHTML style img tag unambiguously
means An image element followed by a greater than sign.


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

Since this is either ill defined or not defined in the HTML spec so
far (unless WHATWG tackled it?), I'd suggest that the method implied
by XHTML compatibility guidelines might be a more suitable reference
in future?


the construct is valid and the
validator should not claim otherwise. It just doesn't mean what the
author intends.


Given the mis-match in meaning that does not produce an error, surely
it's something that should change then?

Kind regards,

-Alastair


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



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

2007-05-29 Thread Alastair Campbell

On 5/29/07, Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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


I guess from that I should deduce that I do need to know the SGML spec
to know that a slash will terminate a tag?

I hope HTML5 does away with this...

-Alastair


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



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

2007-05-29 Thread Alastair Campbell

Thanks Liorean,

On 5/29/07, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Just in the same way you can't know XHTML if you have no knowledge of
XML, you can't really know HTML 2-4.01 with no knowledge of SGML. You
don't need to know all of SGML however, just the subset that is used
for HTML.

 It seems strange that the closing slash is
 taken as the close, rather than the greater than sign, is that in the
 HTML spec somewhere?

Yes, in the SGML declaration.


Which someone linked to earlier, and I still can't translate to see
anything on forward slashes... is there actually an SGML spec? You'd
have thought it would be linked to from here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/intro/sgmltut.html
or googlable with SGML spec, but no such luck.

Cheers,

-Alastair


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




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

2007-05-29 Thread Alastair Campbell

On 5/29/07, Nick Fitzsimons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The topic under discussion is, as I mentioned in my earlier post,
mentioned in HTML 4.01 at
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.7
as being something with poor support in HTML user agents.


Which I read, thank you, but unless I'm being particularly thick
(quite possible, it was a long weekend ;), I can't see how that
affects terminating characters. Without the SGML spec, what is a NET
character? It's just frustrating not to be able to get to the source
and find out what these things are.

Further googling lead to these which actually explain the issue, so
for anyone else who was confused:
http://www.rikkertkoppes.com/thoughts/2005/01/27/
http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/04/xhtml-future

Cheers,

-Alastair


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



Re: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?

2007-05-25 Thread Alastair Campbell

On 5/25/07, Matthew Pennell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

POSH as a concept is not about HTML vs. XHTML, it's about using the correct
semantic elements.


Agreed, when I read the question I thought it was about getting an
editor to use pre-built sections of code to create certain HTML
patterns, but I guess not.


As David says, most platforms - Wordpress, Textpattern,
Expression Engine - will output whatever you put into their templates.


Wordpress will, however, you might have to dig around to prevent it
putting in closing slashes on head elements. (Closing slashes on
content items such as images are fine, they are within the body and do
not cause validation issues.)

-Alastair


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