Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-21 Thread Korny Sietsma
It's completely irrelevant these days, but long file names, i.e.
anything with more than 8 characters in the name or 3 in the
extension, are implemented on FAT file systems via a messy hack.  The
'real' file name is the short name (i.e. Progra~1) and the rest of
the file name is stored in extra hidden directories, it's all very
messy and inefficient.

ISTR this came in with Windows 95, so if you want to use web servers
that run under MS-DOS, you might have a problem :)

- Korny (showing his age)

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Ian Chamberlain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 My memory is fading fast Joe, but as I recall our first windows based web
 server (from Bob Denny's book) fixed the 8.3 limitation.

 We did continue creating .htm for a while after that but only out of habit.

 I can't remember the exact date but I would quess that we have been largely
 free from that limitation for well over  ten years.

 Regards

 Ian

 - Original Message -
 From: Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 9:43 AM
 Subject: Re: [WSG] html vs. html


 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.

 But I completely agree, my server can serve a file.php file from
 www.domain.com/file
  as long as don't stupidly name the file the same as a directory at
 the same level.

 I may be that _at one time_ the windows server needed a 8.3 filename
 convention but that went out the door ages ago didn't it?

 PS: the subject should really be htm vs html, no? or am I missing
 something?
 Joe

 On Jun 20, 2008, at 08:55, Martin Kliehm wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  wrote:
Rob Enslin wrote:
   
 I recently started noticing that our CMS system
 generated .htm pages where
 previously the system produced .html pages. I questioned the
 support staff
 and was told that the W3C deemed .html as non-standard file
 extensions (or
 rather .htm were more-widely accepted as the standard)
   
Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Challenge the support staff to
 actually point out
where this statement from the W3C is supposed to be...

  I'd have to agree; I'm inclined to believe that .htm is a
 carryover
  from when Microsoft(TM) products (ie DOS) only supported file
  extensions up to 3 characters in length.
 
  If there is a W3C statement, I'd love to see it.

 Oh, there is. The W3C advises to avoid file extensions in URLs to
 keep future compliant. Cool URIs don't change, you know. ;)

 http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI


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


 ==
 Joe Ortenzi
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.typingthevoid.com



 ***
 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]
 ***





-- 
Kornelis Sietsma korny at my surname dot com
kornys at gmail dot com on google chat -- kornys on skype
I've never seen a man eat so many chicken wings


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



Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6 ??

2008-06-16 Thread Korny Sietsma
... and all of them ultimately rely on AlphaImageLoader, which (as I
mentioned elsewhere) runs the risk of the sort of problems discussed
at http://blogs.cozi.com/tech/2008/03/transparent-png.html?cid=106552420

- Korny

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Jens-Uwe Korff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I attach [the htc approach ] to a style sheet for IE6 or below[,] that
 way my CSS still passes validation.

 Good point which I didn't mention explicitly. However, not using the HTC
 approach reduces your HTTP requests by one which might be interesting in
 terms of optimising your site for speed.

 Cheers,

 Jens

 The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files 
 is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, 
 dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or 
 any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No 
 part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written 
 consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error 
 please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete 
 all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any 
 information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet 
 communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal 
 responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.


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





-- 
Kornelis Sietsma korny at my surname dot com


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



Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6 ??

2008-06-12 Thread Korny Sietsma
SuperSleigh seems to use a very similar method to iepngfix.htc (which
I think Michael indicated he is using?) - we're using iepngfix and it
seems to handle most situations, though both solutions are limited to
what the microsoft AlphaImageLoader filter can do.

But yes, there are some tricky situations - especially if you are
building content via javascript or ajax.  And as far as I can tell
setting opacity (other than 1 or 0) on a transparent png just doesn't
work at all.

- Korny

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Andrew McGrath
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 theres no clean solution that i'm aware of...but this is a common issue, so
 i'm certain there is plenty of tips and tricks out there to help you get
 around the problem you are faced with.

 http://24ways.org/2007/supersleight-transparent-png-in-ie6

 the above link provides some /interesting/ info, i don't claim to know a lot
 about this topic in particular however this page essentially summarized what
 i already knew...so maybe it will help.

  Good luck!

 2008/6/10 Michael Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 HI people,

 I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working IE6
 properly.

 I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have
 tried some
 tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution.

 There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get the
 transparency
 working but only in one of the images i need them to appear.


 Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this transparency
 crap
 to make work ?

 I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon...


 Michael in Athens


 ***
 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]
 ***



-- 
Kornelis Sietsma korny at my surname dot com
kornys at gmail dot com on google chat -- kornys on skype
we do what we must, because we can


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



Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6?? Screen Resolution

2008-06-12 Thread Korny Sietsma
The linked article at
http://blogs.cozi.com/tech/2008/03/transparent-png.html?cid=106552420
is especially scary - AlphaImageLoader causing browser crashes? Ow.
And those guys had direct contacts inside Microsoft.

I'm not completely sure of the benefit of using png8 over using png32
for all browsers, and using gifs for ie6 and below.  It is a tad more
work to do ie6-specific style sheets and ie6-specific images; but
presumably the png32 images will look nicer for all other users.  YMMV
of course.

- Korny

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:11 PM, David Hucklesby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:49:43 +0100, Stewart Griffiths wrote:

 However, within Fireworks you can also export png's as a png8, which 
 provides a palette
 based colour model (like gif's) and which many believe only offers a 1 bit 
 transparency
 option. However, if we play with some of the settings we are able to offer 
 similar semi-
 transparency colors as a png32.


 Yes.

 More on that technique here:
  http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/09/18/png8-the-clear-winner/

 ... with some ideas for improving appearance in IE 6 here:
  http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/03/20/making-ie6-friendly-png8-images/


 Cordially,
 David
 --




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





-- 
Kornelis Sietsma korny at my surname dot com
kornys at gmail dot com on google chat -- kornys on skype
we do what we must, because we can


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



Re: [WSG] firefox 3 beta5

2008-05-20 Thread Korny Sietsma
I have had problems running FF2 on a machine also running FF3 -
specifically, and fatally for me, FireBug wouldn't install cleanly in
FF2 if I had FF3 running.

I'd load FF3 in a vmware image, or maybe test it with an Ubuntu 8.04 live CD.

Note that beta 5 at least is still rather unstable.  I've managed to
crash it semi-regularly - somewhere the combination of Gmail,
Campfire, and Firebug (I have to run an alpha of Firebug to get FF3
support) makes the browser die.  I'm not sure which of these is the
actual culprit, or if it's some combination, but clicking on a folder
in gmail, sometimes, kills the browser; and firebug itself often goes
into la-la land.

Release Candidate 1 is out now, so hopefully things will get more
stable when Ubuntu picks it up, but at the moment it's a world of pain
- at least for my configuration!

- Korny

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 2008/05/20 15:13 (GMT+1200) Paul Bennett apparently typed:

 Ack!
 Anyone else had horrible problems installing FF3?

 No, but ...

 My install crashes every time I open it, so I had to reinstall FF2..

 I avoid installing applications whenever possible. In the case of
 unreleased Gecko products, it's more than just possible, it's often 
 preferable.

 Get yourself an archive build instead of an installer build from
 http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/ and see
 if you have better luck.

 There's no reason you can't have both on the same machine at the same time,
 though an extra step or three are required to enable using both at the same
 time, and you're probably better off not using a profile previously used with
 FF3 to use with FF2.
 --
 . . . . in everything, do to others what you would
 have them do to you . . . .   Matthew 7:12 NIV

  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

 Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/


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





-- 
Kornelis Sietsma korny at my surname dot com
kornys at gmail dot com on google chat -- kornys on skype
we do what we must, because we can


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



Re: [WSG] :: CSS Code Formatting ::

2008-05-12 Thread Korny Sietsma
Hmm - we're currently debating what to do about dynamic css on our
project (Ruby on Rails based)
There seem to be a few options:
- No dynamic css at all
- Simple templated stuff, where the code is basically css + inline ruby:
#whatever { background-color : %= background_colour %; }
- Something that builds css from a difference css-like language like
Sass: http://haml.hamptoncatlin.com/docs/rdoc/classes/Sass.html
- Or something else...

I'd be interested in the thoughts of folks here.  A simple template
would have the advantage of (possibly) working well in css editors and
tools; but there also seems to be some buzz around tools like Sass
that take some more repetition out of the CSS.

Or is there something else we should look at?  Really, mostly we are
just looking for ways to avoid too much repetition - it'd be good to
avoid endlessly repeating colour codes and font sizes all over the
place, when we have a server-side language available that could build
our css for us.

- Korny

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Adam Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 We use a very similar approach - php to deliver the css.
 This allows us to do some very cool things, such as target browsers with
 simple comments

 For example:

 /* IE
 button {
width: auto;
overflow: visible;
 }
 button span {
margin-top: 2px;
 }
 */

 or we can even target browser versions

 /* IE6
 button {
width: auto;
overflow: visible;
 }
 button span {
margin-top: 2px;
 }
 */

 or even browsers and operating systems

 /* Opera 9.10 Win
 button {
width: auto;
overflow: visible;
 }
 button span {
margin-top: 2px;
 }
 */

 We also store basic css configuration into a config.ini file that can be
 read by the php script, for example:

 #-#
 # LAYOUT DEFINITION
 #   style1 centered content, header and footer are fullscreen width
 #   style2 fullscreen
 #   style3 centered
 #   style4 header fullscreen, everything else centered
 #   style5 footer fullscreen, everything else centered
 #-#

 layout.style= style3;
 layout.width= 758;
 left.width  = 185;
 right.width = 0;
 header.display  = true;
 footer.display  = true;
 body.bg = #FFF;
 header.bg   = #FFF;
 left.bg = #dae2f0;
 right.bg= #78746E;
 main.bg = #FFF;
 footer.bg   = #FFF;

 this sets up our basic layout for us, very quickly and easily. The true
 power is in using some logic to produce the cs is that is needed. We can
 then compress it all nicely, add a future expiry date, cache and we are good
 to go.

 Sorry, this seemed to get completely off topic, but I am sure it will spark
 some conversations :)
 Cheers
 Adam



 On Fri, 09 May 2008 14:46:34 +1000, David Hucklesby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

 On Tue, 6 May 2008 19:19:24 +0530, Amrinder wrote:

 I was reading this article on Smashing Magazine which shows how to
 increase code
 readability,

 http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/05/02/improving-code-readability-with-css-
 styleguides/

 but I have listened to Andy Clarke over Lynda.com saying that one should
 save the white
 space as it increases the file size.



 Ted Drake replied:

 Reduce the number of css files used
 Link to them in the top of the page, no inline styles
 Gzip and reduce the whitespace when going to production.

 ~~~

 A job for a server-side script. See:

  http://www.coolphptools.com/dynamic_css
 Cordially,
 David
 --




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




 --
 Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/


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





-- 
Kornelis Sietsma korny at my surname dot com


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