Re: [WSG] CSS based redesign of http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/

2004-07-14 Thread Bradley Wright
 imports are now generally used for IE css bug fixes.
 but thats a bit overboard.

Could you qualify this statement please? @import is used to import
stylesheets. We don't want to give members who might be new to CSS the
wrong idea here.

The site probably won't validate either due to some ad-rotator rubbish
(script language= etc), but users should still gain most of the
benefits of minimized (at least moreso than previously) markup and
cached stylesheets. Bandwidth savings will be great, and Google should
be happier with it.
*
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] Making my menus work across multiple browsers

2004-01-29 Thread Bradley Wright

Just a quickie about validation, you've got an invalid doctype declaration:

 !DOCTYPE xhtml PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd;

the html should be html

just to make it easy here's the proper one:

 !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd;

I tested it and it validates now. All your problems with validation were
caused by the invalid doctype. If that's coming directly from Dreamweaver,
you may want to edit the default templates and fix it.

- Original Message - 
From: Seona Bellamy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 10:48 AM
Subject: [WSG] Making my menus work across multiple browsers



 Hi guys,

 Well, after lurking on here for several weeks, I'm finally taking the
plunge
 and asking a question. (And getting rather alliterative in my subject
 line... Sorry...)

 I have a navigation bar with sub-menus based on the list structure and run
 primarily by CSS. The problem I am having is making it work in both IE and
 any real browser (using Mozilla for testing). If I get it to that the
 submenus are correctly positioned in Mozilla, then in IE they are floating
 halfway across the screen and impossible to select. If I get them
correctly
 positioned in IE, then in Mozilla they sit over the main navigation bar
and
 so are impossible to see, let alone select.

 The page can be viewed at:
 http://d1075184.u42.b-20.net/
 The CSS can be viewed at:
 http://d1075184.u42.b-20.net/clinics.css

 Incidentally, I have the CSS validating just fine (which I'm quite proud
of,
 given how new I am to this *grin*) and I have the page itself almost
 validating. According to the W3C validator, there are only 3 problems left
 and I can't figure out how to fix them. If anyone wants to take the time
to
 have a look at that and point me in the right direction, it would be
 appreciated. Funnily enough, the problems seem to be with the code
 Dreamweaver put in when I asked it to make a new file that was XHTML
 compliant. *shrug* Go figure.

 Cheers,

 Seona.
 ---
 Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
 Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
 Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004

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





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



Re: [WSG] bug check - does it break?

2004-01-18 Thread Bradley Wright



Ben,

After a preliminary run-through on IE 5.0 and IE 
5.5, there are a few issues:

Issues on both browsers:
* The page is not fixed-width 
in either of them. It's left-aligned and seems to continue across the page 
(example: the background green-colour behind the photo on the login page goes 
the width of the page)
* The box-model is slightly 
askew, as it seems like the lines/borders don't match up on all the pages (could 
be related to the elastic rendering)

On IE 5.0 only:
* The navigation doesn't appear 
at all.

Didn't really get time to get stuck in and delve 
through your code, sorry!

Brad

PS: If you want screenshots contact me directly 
at [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ben Webster 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 11:14 
  AM
  Subject: [WSG] bug check - does it 
  break?
  
  Hey there crew,
  
  just finished marking up the templates for a new site we're 
  building here at werk. At the moment it validates a-ok - but I was wondering 
  if you guys could run your keen eyes over it to see if there are any 
  bugs.
  
  I've tested the markup in a few browsers - but haven't been 
  able to test yet on Win95, 98, 2000, IE5 or Mac OS 8+9.
  
  http://conversantstudios.com.au/apa/
  http://www.conversantstudios.com.au/apa/index_02.html
  http://www.conversantstudios.com.au/apa/index_05.html
  
  Let me know what you think,
  Benvolio


Re: [WSG] PHP Question...

2003-12-11 Thread Bradley Wright




I'm probably a little late on the ball with
this one, but couldn't you escape the ? characters?

Like so:
print "\?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"iso-8859-1\"\?\n";

Don't see why that wouldn't work. Of course it's almost the same
thing...
never mind. :)

Beau Lebens wrote:

  
  
  
  that's a very valid one that i didn't mention simon :)
  
  i had that exact same problem on my server, where my
hosted site is configured to parse all files as XML and PHP
(apparently) and so I had conflicts - ended up having to use something
like this;
  
  ?php echo ""; ??xml version="1.0"
encoding="iso-8859-1"??php echo "\n"; ?
  
  Beau
  
-Original Message-
From: Simon Jessey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, 8 December 2003 8:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WSG] PHP Question...


Another
thing to consider is XML. Some people (myself included) create XML
files on a regular basis. The PHP short tag ? can easily be
confused by XML parsers, because it is the same as the beginning of a
Processing Instruction. For example:?xml
version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?
The problem doesn't usually arise, because the server
strips the page of PHP as it is being served; however, it is better to
be safe than sorry, eh?

--
Simon Jessey
business: http://keystonewebsites.com/
personal: http://jessey.net/blog/
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



  -Original Message-
  From: Beau Lebens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  Subject: RE: [WSG] PHP Question...
  
  
  ?php is more reliable - you can
configure a server to ignore "?" as an opening PHP tag (short_tags
i think the directive is from memory).
  
  for compatibilities sake, you should
always use the ?php tag in your coding, but if short tags are
enabled, then technically the 2 are the same (both just define a block
of PHP code)
  
-Original Message-
From: Chris Stratford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Subject: [WSG] PHP Question...




Wondering,
what is the difference between using:

?
/* php
code */
?

as opposed
to:

?PHP
/* php
code */
?


  

  





Re: [WSG] OT: Opening documents in _blank window

2003-12-11 Thread Bradley Wright
Miles,

Generally when serving PDF type document at my place of work, we serve 
them using a custom HTTP header:

header( content-disposition: inline );

(that's the PHP way to do it).

This works for us because we serve most of our documents as BLOBs from 
the database. If you're not doing that, I'm not sure my help will be 
any... help.

Be careful with this one, it seems to work pretty well in IE, but other 
browsers ignore it. Then again, other browsers generally behave better 
with attachments/mime-types in general.

Miles Tillinger wrote:

Just a question about how other developers handle opening documents e.g. PDF, DOC, in a new window.

At the moment I am using _blank targets.

Scenario 1: User is using IE with Word configured to open inside the IE window.  When the user clicks on a link to the Word doc a new IE window opens and the doc is loaded in that window.

Scenario 2: User is using IE or another browser, but is configured to open Word doc's in Word, not in the Browser window.  When the user clicks on a link to the Word doc a new Browser window open and the user either prompted to Save or Open the doc, or may even open the doc in Word automatically if the user has previously selected that option.  The problem here is that the user is left with a blank Browser window.

So Scenario 1 is how I'd like it to behave in every case, but is this possible?  Since I have no way of knowing how the user has their system configured I don't know whether to offer the link with a _blank target or not?  Is there an accessible standard way of doing it?

Regards,

Miles

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



 



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



Re: [WSG] Re: px em pt ???

2003-12-11 Thread Bradley Wright




While we're on the topic of text sizes,
what does everyone here think of DOM driven style-switchers? (ala
http://www.mezzoblue.com/ and http://www.zeldman.com/)?

I'm thinking that it's possible people will miss these resizing buttons.
What's the general opinion on these?
Good idea? Maybe trying too hard to have their "cake" (in this case,
the lack of guilt from using pixels for font sizing) and eat it too?
They're undeniably cool.. but how USEFUL
are they?


Ben Boyle wrote:

  Why doesn't anyone push the barrow saying "Font sizes should be LARGE by
default, and designers should MAKE THE FONT SMALLER if/when they don't like
it." Why do we aim to please designers and expect users to make the
adjustments? I don't get it. But then, I skipped all the subjects on
typography at uni!

Hoping the average Joe will fiddle with their browser environment is way out
of line, from a usability perspective. You want users to focus on their task
and working in that domain - simple and direct feedback as they accomplish
what they set out to achieve. Having to stop and figure out "computer stuff"
(yet again) is distracting at least, confusing and frustrating for many. Ah
but reality never quite reaches Utopia does it? :)

But I'm heartened to see that CSS3 looks to include more font keywords.
CSS2 gave us "menu", "icon", "caption", etc. These use the fonts (sizes and
styles) as specified in the desktop settings of the computer. You would
hope, at least, that the user has their computer configured to their
personal preference. (Sorry... doesn't help with the netcafe scenario, does
it). Does make you wonder why IE (in particular) doesn't pick up any of the
desktop settings for use as a default font size. Why is that?

I was disappointed CSS2 never had a font keyword for standard window text.
Perhaps CSS3 will help us finally put the font issue to rest - or at least
down a very deep pit where I don't have to listen to it anymore. Sorry but
I've copped almost a years worth of discussion on this at work, directly and
indirectly. Fonts. Grrr. Perhaps it's time to render all text as images once
more! *ducks*

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



  





Re: [WSG] Hi! www.themaninblue.com

2003-12-05 Thread Bradley Wright
Cameron,

Indeed, welcome aboard (should I be saying that? This is only my second 
post :) ). Am most impressed with your site, and have been since Douglas 
Bowman wrote it up on Stop Design (one of those US blogs :) ). It's a 
really good effort, and an even more impressive effect.

Respect where respect is due.

Brad

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



RE: [WSG] A quick XHTMLquestion

2003-12-05 Thread Bradley Wright
I certainly agree with your main points here Mark, but of course I feel 
compelled to add something of my own:

XHTML, HTML (both of which are current (and valid) standards; something 
alot of people have forgotten about) and any other web technology (CSS, 
DOM etc., which likely aren't appropriate things to lump together like 
this), are like any other technology: they should be used based whether 
or not they're appropriate to the situation. It's like Flash for Flash's 
sake, and the subsequent backlash against Flash.

Flash is a great tool when used appropriately. However, like Flash, 
using XHTML for the sake of following the current standards are all 
important trend in the design community (admittedly one of the better 
trends I've seen) isn't appropriate either.

I also believe that the MIME type is important: it's part of the 
standard for XHTML. Following standards is hard, agreed, but if you're 
going to follow them you should follow them, no matter how hard it is. 
The inherent level of difficuly involved perhaps says something about 
XHTML: despite the maturity that the standard has reached, if 
user-agents can't keep up then maybe it's not ready for prime-time yet. 
Controversial opinion perhaps, but the logic seems to make sense.

There are always two sides to the coin (or argument), and standards are 
always a good thing to keep in mind, if for no other reason than simply 
because it's the way the web was intended to work: around meaning and 
structure. Standards are VERY important in this sense: to make pages 
MEAN something. That's the real reason why I love these standards.

I, however, am still going to experiment and push the boundaries of this 
standard, because I believe it's the way forward. It's just that being 
totally hard-assed about standards is just as damaging to the 
standards as not following them at all. Moderation is the key, as it is 
with most things. I assume most of us run our businesses through this 
medium, and as business people we need to keep what's appropriate for 
the client in mind, as well as the future of the web.

Just my two cents. (possibly that'll end up getting rounded down to 0 
cents though)



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