Re: [WSG] Re: Moral High-horse
Lachlan wrote: The problem is that many people see the issue as what will happen if Idon't follow standards?; whereas the questions they should be asking are what are the benefits of following standards?, how mucheasier/faster is it to develop with standards?, etc. If the whole matter were addressed this way, IMHO we would have two major benefits: 1. Clear understanding of our role within the society as a whole and the www community as part of that whole. 2. Easyness in communicating this concept to others (clients and/or other webdesigners), since they will be clear to us in the first place. I hope I was able to make my point here ;-) Happy coding -- Paolo Dodetwww.noblocodenotas.comVerba volant, Scripta manent, Digitalia juvant
Re: [WSG] Re: Moral High-horse
Jay wrote: I don't know how this is true as we can only really know our role within a small portion of the www community within society. I see your point and I can't but agree, partly because I didn't really stated clearly what my point was, this in the first place, and secondly because... yeah, the web community at large is really large, know what I mean? When I stated this: 2. Easyness in communicating this concept to others (clients and/or other webdesigners), since they will be clear to us in the first place.What I really meant was that I can't sell anything if I'm not clear about what the advantages would be for my client. But then you said: we need to stop preaching constantly to the converted and go out there and like Seth Godin and Guy Kawasaki get ourselves some standards evangelists. Clients who have implemented sites on standards and saved money, development time, upgrade headaches, forward compatibility etc. I couldn't agree more. The best way to sell something is through some satisfied client of yours' friends. If I got your point here. And then, regarding this group. Well, I like it here. In spite of people who say there are some who look down to newbies and all that stuff, you know? I AM a newbie, I don't feel like I am being looked down to by nobody. I found people who helped me by giving me advice directly or indirectly, and good pieces of advice too, mind you. Surely, not all of us are from the same lot... Well, Thanks God. The world would be such a boring place, otherwise. Don't you think so? I think that the way people would look at me is the way I let them to, and if I think that somebody is treating me contemptously well, I know for experience that what I see in others is what is inside me, that's why I can spot it in the first place, see what I mean? So, I am with you, this is a nice place to share thoughts and ideas. Far better than a lot of other place I didn't mention 'cause I like to talk of good things and let the bad work out for themselves ;-) Cheers -- Paolo Dodetwww.noblocodenotas.comVerba volant, Scripta manent, Digitalia juvant
Re: [WSG] content type etc
Thanks a lot for the answer, Lachlan. The reason I asked you this is that I normally send two different content-type according to the browser. That is. If you access my personal site using IE you will notice that I use a meta tag to declare the mime-type, and in the case of IE it would be text/html, whereas if you access using any other browser the page will be served as XML, using a xml declaration, without any meta-tag to declare the mime-type. Now, even though the all thing validates as XHTML1.0 Strict, I was wondering whether that would be the correct practice. This the link to my personal page: www.noblocodenotas.com Best regards. Paolo Dodet
Re: [WSG] content type etc
Thanks very much Lachlan, I'll start to study the all matter as soon as I'll get home. A couple of hours I guess. I really need to work this out once and for all. Best Regards. Paolo Dodet -- Real knowledge is based on experience. All that is left is pure vanity.
Re: [WSG] content type etc
On 15/01/06, Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When file is saved and then loaded Mozilla determines which parser - html, o xmlto use by file extension. So if you save xhtml file as .html/.htm andthen load it, it willbe parsed by html parser, and in this case META is taken into account. If file is saved as .xhtml, .xml or .xht it will be parsed with xmlpareser and META is ignored. So, what about files saved with a .php extension? Could you shed some light on it, please? For I feel very confused about the all matter, and I can't find clear enough material online. Paolo Dodet
Re: [WSG] pdf graphics
YUP, I couldn't agree more with you. Paolo Dodet
