RE: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?
How do folks find the new OOXML format in regards to this line of thinking? In
that I'm curious to see what WSG thinks of it and how it fits in with future
potential.
-
Scott Barnes
{Product Manager}
Microsoft.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hayden's Harness
Attachment
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:15 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?
This topic is very interesting. As a screen reader user I have enjoyed always
getting Rich Text files. I use to get bills in HTML which was great. However,
everything is now PDFs. I hate PDFs! With a little more care, you could do
everything a PDF does in an HTML file. I use a RTF editor called Jarte
(http://www.jarte.com) with conversion packs I downloaded from Microsoft. My
Jarte word Processor can now read everything from Word 97 to Word 2007. I am
not a lover of Word and do not have it installed on ny PC. Besides being a
resource hog Word takes over everything and has ties to everything on the PC. I
do not know what is worse, Word or a virus.
Angus MacKinnon
Infoforce Services
http://www.infoforce-services.com
Faith is the strength by which a shattered world shall emerge into
the light. - Helen Keller
***
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] Re: SilverLight
Hi, It warms my dear heart to see Silverlight talked about in a forum like this! :) I'll help if I may clear up a few things around Silverlight. * Silverlight SEO/Usability - At this point it's primitive, but we are working with folks from around the globe to firm this up some more, when it will be firmed up is something I don't have dates around. Suffice to say it's on the agenda and with US 508 being quite strict, obviously there is a desire to make sure this happens. That being said, given that the XAML has to be well-formed XML this can now lead to some interesting approaches to XLST specific data from XAML to insert your desire here. In that if Usability Engines like JAWS etc wanted to focus on this space, they could practically do a lot of the leg work themselves. Michael and Jeff Wilcox have done some work around getting under the covers of Silverlight XAML / JavaScript and using it for Good instead of Evil (heh). You can find more about this journey here: http://blogs.msdn.com/msmossyblog/archive/2007/10/01/using-web-analytics-with-silverlight.aspx and http://blogs.msdn.com/synergist/archive/2007/10/03/other-silverlight-seo-techniques.aspx * Browsers! - We have compatibility with Safari, Firefox and obviously Internet Explorer. We are working with the Opera folks but no specifics around that, suffice to say last time I spoke with the teams in Redmond it was something they were taking serious (obviously). I use an iMac and debug with it a lot, so how's that for going against the Microsoft grain ;) heh. * Platforms - We work on OSX (Leopard works, but.. like all stuff atm, give it a couple months to really back that statement up), Windows Vista and via the Moonlight project we are obviously looking to branch out in that space. There are some patent issues our legal folks are working through to ensure that it's all smoothed out and what not, but this is a big step for Microsoft in this space and so we are learning as we go via the guidance of the Moonlight team (whom are awesome). * DLR - Check out the DLR if .NET / C# isn't your cup of tea. There are languages popping up all over the shop around writing code to produce Silverlight (ie Bluedragon folks are working on CFML + Silverlight - that's right, writing CFML in client-side... isn't that a ghost busters moment? I.e. don't cross the streams?). It's pretty exciting to see this happen to be openly honest. Let me know if i can help in anyway shape or form as It's not all that bad - yet I'm wearing the Microsoft logo, so i guess I'm biased :) (that being said 9months ago I was a Flex Fanboi, so i can help with some cross-wiring there). -- Scott Barnes (RIA Evangelist) Microsoft Ptyhttp://www.microsoft.com/australia | Blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/msmossyblog | Office: +61 (2) 88179139 | Mobile: 0439-072-184 Twitter: twitter.com/mossybloghttp://twitter.com/mossyblog | MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this e-mail *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Re: SilverLight
A lot of sins have to be forgiven :) heh.. I can't give any more on this as I don't enjoy spending time with our legal team. Suffice to say, it's being worked out :) (I know that has to suck as an answer, but insert patience analogy here) heh. Scott / Microsoft. p.s nice youtube! :) (would look better in HD Silverlight hehe). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Cruickshank Sent: Wednesday, 31 October 2007 2:56 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: SilverLight Hi Scott, There are some patent issues our legal folks are working through to ensure that it's all smoothed out and what not, but this is a big step for Microsoft in this space and so we are learning as we go via the guidance of the Moonlight team (whom are awesome). Well Microsoft have been doing IT stuff for a while now so it's, er, a little strange that the patent issues around SilverLight/XAML haven't been resolved yet. 1) For Linux developers, is the plan to release Microsoft's patents over MoonLight under a license comparable to that of HTML/CSS? 2) For Linux distributors, is the plan to be compatible with the Debian patent policy? And what kind of timelines do you think there might be around solving these issues (obviously these things can take a while, so when should I give up hope ;) Thanks :) ps. now this is what's awesome http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=KFoTFXxcrrw .Matthew Cruickshank http://docvert.org/ *** 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] [OT] NZ vs Aust
hehehehe Damn you Gary! I might do a bit of a talk i guess on CSS + DHTML? if anyones got an interest. I've just spent the last few days writing a bunch of CFMX controls (*cough* ripped off Flex XUL *cough*) that basically utilise XHTML Strict DTD (heh), DHTML + CSS. Its got some nice smarts in place, but to keep ontopic with this list, I did put in some CSS framework approaches (ie breaking up design,layout,formating,custom) for each control. Not sure, anyone interested in that type of discussion. -- Regards, Scott Barnes Mob: 04040 32812 URL: http://www.mossyblog.com .. Code Monkey for Hire... - Original Message - From: Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 4:30 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] [OT] NZ vs Aust On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:53:14 +1000, Mark Stanton wrote: If I didn't know that you were going to be *very* involved in helping Gary run the Brisbane meetings soon - I'd ban you too. Oooh! Is Scott going to give a presentation at a brisbane WSG meeting soon? Excellent! Let us know what your preferred topic is, Scott - saves me having to assign one, you know ;) Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - http://elysiansystems.com/ Brisbane, Australia ** 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] [OT] NZ vs Aust
Just because Kiwis aren't Australians, doesn't mean we don't try and claim them as our own.. *cough* Pharlap... Russel Crowe (heh, not that its worth bragging about) Scott - Original Message - From: Mike Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 2:31 PM Subject: [WSG] [OT] NZ vs Aust Natalie Yeah, but the Kiwis are not Australians, they are New Zealanders, so Natalie we have an excuse ;p ok, I know this is waaay off-topic, and I *do* promise no more posts on it, but trash talking is trash talking :) So, to use a couple of pertinent title tags from Natalie's site http://www.pixelkitty.net/ ... No, Kiwis are not Australians - Love it or Shove it and as for Australians .. hmmm ... - all talk, no walk springs to mind :) Mike Brown (ducking and running in NZ) ** 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: Future.....(was: Re: [WSG] iFrames vs Scrolling Divs)
FYI: http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1086387609order=1count=10 Good read. Hit some points I tried to hit but failed :) Scott Scott Barnes wrote: Hi All, Firstly thankyou for contributing in this discussion, i know most of you are probably feeling who is this clown, attacking W3C. This is not infact the case, I am merely trying to get an overall understanding of why and where bodies like the W3C will be in the future. In doing so i have illustrated what in my mind is a flaw, in that the W3C is made up of a few selected Elite, and the little guy you, me and every other developer out their has no voice on the subject matter of whether DOM should be refined or whether some obscure CSS property is retrofitted accordingly. A few points have been made that Democracy in this case would be a fatal blow to the overall purpose of what the W3C represents. I find that a very hard thing to stomach and believe that a few would simply say that a vote would be a long drawn out exhausting process. To me if we can elect people within our society (in some countries) to run an entire country based on information we are given? Surely its not that much of a stretch in imagination to ask that we the ACTUAL development community have a say in the way standards are put forward to the world to follow? Its not a very large request? At some point the W3C have to cast some kind of vote to go forward on something along those lines, and thats where I would love to see us contribute. I'm not for a total abolishment of the W3C, they serve a purpose well, but I feel we should either be a virtual member (ie we the people collectively make one vote at least) or we ultimatley decide the outcome based on what they have put forward? We aren't dealing with an amount of people who cast their vote because its the most popular at the time, we are a diverse amount of individuals who come from every known social background with a huge array of beliefs and vast amounts of life experience! It is a radical idea that I know, but for me as a developer to take the W3C seriously, i need at least some sense of ownership, otherwise its just another collection of windbags telling me how technology should be run the standards way. I put it to you, a country today were to sit back and say to the people yeah, we have decided that in order to best run the country, we will select a few of our so called elite, they will make the choices on how we we will be governed and you go about your lives, as democracy isn't as easy as it sounds and you'll just drag us back. insert war here I've been making websites since i think 1996 or was it 1995, I've seen the HTML go from a very basic format into what it is now, some may have been around longer but the point is, i've seen it at its best, and I've seen it at its worst. I've seen browsers dictate the outcomes of many a standard and we are paying the price for it now. In years to come, i have serious doubt the W3C will in fact be a worthwile group? bold statement I know, but I say this as technology like FLEX and Microsofts AXML are trying their hardest to push the HTML browser out the door. Reason is its just too slow and way to many flavours out there, thus the standardss are required. I wonder now what impact it would have on the future of the Internet and products like this, if the concept above were to come true and we the developers did cast our vote? how much faster would things maybe done? How fast would technologies like XUL or similiar flavour evolve if their was a large majority shaping and moulding HTML to evolve in parrell with these languages. Microsoft are one clear major player who have seen how HTML has mutated into this thinware deployment system, where you could write applications to do day to day tasks, with minimal payload and in many cases Operating System Independent. Joel on Software (google it) put in perspective that in many ways the browser could end up being the virtual operating system where you utilise the overall browser as your base framework, that runs many operations (whether they be applications or presentations). They appear to see this is a big advantage to an existing operating system, thus Longhorn products are born, allowing developers a standard, that be microsofts, way of developing thinware applications with minimal development time. HTML has served its purpose and it feels like it was the first prototype for what may in years to come be a more advanced protocol in the way we handle computer experiences. For now, XHTML seems to be setup and evolved soley to bring order back to chaos, but its growing slowly in many ways and it's not accepting the fact that backward compatibility is a must. We are far too deep entrenched in TAG soup country. W3C have had the luxury of saying to the world do it this way please but they in now way are helping to enforce the standards they make? its more of a reference point and thats
Re: Future.....(was: Re: [WSG] iFrames vs Scrolling Divs)
Hugh Todd wrote: Scott, you said, If this IS the case, what benefits are we getting as developers for taking on extra headaches in making it W3C compliant (who by the way aren't an international elected body - more of a group that have taken liberty to makeup standards). Who would elect such a body? Web designers? Governments? Users? The UN? True, its just amazing how we blindly follow a cluster of people? based on the fact we hero-worship them in some way or form? What if they actually put concepts to a public vote? the web itself could vote on yes (you couldn't ask for a more diverse separated parallel society), lets abolish/implement xyz or no lets not? In that set a time frame, all votes are final, done. Wonder how a concept like this, in its basic democratic form would impact on future browser development? At the moment most browser development teams probably could only hazard a guess on what features to make w3c compliant and what ones not to (can't do them all in one hit in that or implement new approved standards). To me this would give me the little a guy at least a voice in something, while at the same time giving Browser based technologies out there an actual statistical impact study on what actual new/old issues are hot vs ones aren't furthermore it gives me the little guy who would like to help shape the online language we have come to know and love. I mean, I'm sure the people in the w3c gang are really smart monkeys, but like all clusters of people, politics could end up driving it (whether it be some small hidden demon within who voted No on something purely because the guy who thought it up made a bad XMAS party joke about him)? its why we as a society just fail at coming to a collective decision on topics unless a majority ruling is in fact in place (look to local governments). I dunno, personally i have set reservations on webstandards being set and expected to be followed no questions asked. You can join and contribute ideas to the w3c but i can't find anywhere where i can participate in some way as to how end decisions get made? unless i am an organization that appears to pay for such privilege? Like all open free good ideas, they are great on paper, but it needs money to make them work. So to answer your question, Who would elect such a body why my good man, The web. As it is, we have the major browser manufacturers on board, the guy who invented the web heading it up, and some of the clearest-thinking, most far-sighted people in the web community making contributions that aim to free the web from proprietory chains and dead-end hacks, with as elegant solutions as can be devised. What more could you want? far-sighted? or near-sighted? how do you measure their progress on a daily basis? furthermore what impact are they having on new features? are they simply there for profile sake, are they active? do they embrace new technology with just as much passion as we seem to do? or are they traditional conservative people? ... in other words just because they invented the web many a year ago, is it a big ask for us to follow their lead still? or is it a matter of retiring the old lion and make way for the upstart cub? Scott. Down with proprietory solutions, I say! -Hugh Todd * 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: Future.....(was: Re: [WSG] iFrames vs Scrolling Divs)
Lee Roberts wrote: Scott wants to know who voted the W3C the ruling authority. That was me! 20 years on the *net gave me that right. Oh so you were the one? hehehehe Seriously, though, who voted the ISO or IETF to be authoritative enough to establish rules for people using the Internet and World Wide Web, oh yes there is a difference? Who established the rules for the World Wide Web which ethical designers and developers attempt to follow? If web development is your job, don't you think you should be good enough to follow the rules established? If you were a construction builder wouldn't you have to follow rules? As for iframe, I don't like it either. I've used it once, but the page it was pulling in was a flash communications presentation for my radio show. As for frames, they were the most ignorant thing ever created. Personally, they should be allowed to exist today, but for some reason we can't get rid of them by some developers. Well, to answer that i dare you to walk into any web-based enterprise that has a DHTML intranet, and say the following words: Get rid of IFRAMES, and use something else Wear some padding, as the fall from the window could be high. hehe Seriously, lets get into the whole iframe use. 508 stuff, not up to speed on, but most DHTML based applications would be a luxury to get 508 compatible. SOE are a saviour to the DHTML breed, and while i try to make as much as my applications close to being accessible with usability it just doesn't happen. IFRAME = Internal frame, if we are to emulate the client-top generation of software within a browser, its the one little trick we have left. As for using them on the web? well i used them many years ago for my personal site, simply because it was easy at the time (mind my site is horrible, needs bad need of update/doover). Making an actual public website today, seems to be one big juggling act imho, and i'm glad i'm not really required to be a public facade developer and more a SOE. You have to keep in mind, there are two main clusters using the web browser / html language. Internal Corporations and Public Users, while one thing works for one, ther other percentage works for another etc. The real problem with frames is people don't know how to use them in the first place. Second, they lack any real features for accessibility. For SEO purposes they are really bad. Frames were allowed in the beginning because browsers didn't have very good caching abilities. Now that they do, you don't need them. They won't help. That or i'd put it in another way in that they existed for the ability to dynamically render information on screen, while keeping other parts static reducing overall latency and downloads. Perhaps that will help some. Scrolling DIVs at least put all the information on the same page, unless you plan on pulling in another page. In my opinion the latter is a mistake. Search engines say all content must be visible, it never says you can't scroll a DIV to see all the information. Scrolling Divs also come with a higher penalty in that some browsers (namely Internet Explorer) pretty much will cain your memory if it contains large amounts of information, whilst an iframe for various unknown reasons to me, seem to keep the memory balance lower. Good and valid points though. Regards Scott Barnes Sincerely, Lee Roberts http://www.roserockdesign.com http://www.applepiecart.com -Original Message- From: Hugh Todd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 11:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Future.(was: Re: [WSG] iFrames vs Scrolling Divs) Scott, you said, If this IS the case, what benefits are we getting as developers for taking on extra headaches in making it W3C compliant (who by the way aren't an international elected body - more of a group that have taken liberty to makeup standards). Who would elect such a body? Web designers? Governments? Users? The UN? As it is, we have the major browser manufacturers on board, the guy who invented the web heading it up, and some of the clearest-thinking, most far-sighted people in the web community making contributions that aim to free the web from proprietory chains and dead-end hacks, with as elegant solutions as can be devised. What more could you want? Down with proprietory solutions, I say! -Hugh Todd * 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: Future.....(was: Re: [WSG] iFrames vs Scrolling Divs)
Lee Roberts wrote: Scott wrote: [quote]I dunno, personally i have set reservations on webstandards being set and expected to be followed no questions asked. You can join and contribute ideas to the w3c but i can't find anywhere where i can participate in some way as to how end decisions get made? unless i am an organization that appears to pay for such privilege?[/quote] If you want to participate please let me know in what manner or group you would like to participate. I'll get you where you need to be. Yes, I'll forward that on in a bit, but is this a who you need to know in order to participate or is it an open forum? I mean, i'm talking things like basic polls, we login through a serious of identification checks to validate you are one person, click vote yes/no log out? Is this possible for individuals? Scott * 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: Future.....(was: Re: [WSG] iFrames vs Scrolling Divs)
indicate that unless their is some kind of enforcement it'll be a nice concept pile and thats it. I personally think if more people are involved in the W3C (how is another discussion) the overall push for products like FLEX,LongHorn or BrowserXYZ to accept standards will be there, and in return it will create many product and corporate money making potentials, which in turn will drive/fund our focus. Its just a food for thought discussion, please don't assume that i'm just fighting the cause for the sake of it, i'm just questioning the purpose of having a W3C group. It seems like they make the decisions we try and live by them, but browser technologies do what they feel like. People must have a sense of ownership in some small way or they won't fully embrace a concept, its just our nature as human beings to do so. RE: DHTML I've seen mentioned that DHTML the term is being wrongly used, but for me the term DHTML means adding Scripting behaviours around CSS/HTML. Point and case, www.bindows.net its made for IE/Mozilla but the purpose of this illustration is that its not just a case of Form Validation its much more. In this case you will see how these guys have taken HTML another step forward and made it behave like client-side technology. Granted in doing this its jusing a combination of core HTML controls, CSS JavaScript but the end result is a sub-set language that SOE can use to churn out emulated client-top technology in a thinware environment. DHTML like FLASH imho has had a bad reputation and been put into the oh its just a nice multimedia way of delivering stuff to screen..aka Skip Intro etc. In the past 2 years its gotten more imaginative then ever. Barry Beatie mentioned CSS Behaviours, talk about standards and backward compatability. The one most important reason for having CSS Behaviours is it allows you to have a cluster of HTML elements (eg form), attach behaviours to it VIA CSS, have a rich UI experience whilst still being allowed to re-use that cluster of HTML elsewhere, and not dragging the JavaScript with it. To me THIS is DHTML. Its an exhausting topic, and i'm happy has hell that its triggered such a response, the debate has been thin in somoe parts by a few but strong in aother. I'm not proposing that my idea is the only and best, i'm merely asking you all a question if need be show me why if you have the time. If you don't then I apologise and I'll look elsewhere for my answers? I just assumed this would be the forum for such discussion. Regards Scott Barnes * 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] iFrames vs Scrolling Divs
iFrame is valid XHTML 1 Transitional (and Frameset) but it is not available in the Strict DTD (and probably won't be available in future recommendations of XHTML). To embed a document in Strict, use the object element. Something like: object data=foo.html type=text/html width=500 height=300/object Are you absolutly positive about iframes not being available in strict XHTML? because I've got one working as we speak? !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; ?? Scott * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Future.....(was: Re: [WSG] iFrames vs Scrolling Divs)
Q. I've been on the List for a while now, and while i love the webstandards concept, i'm finding it hard to believe that the web will adjust itself to suite extensions like XHTML? The reason i say this is if we were to make a concious decision to move forward, it would be years 5+ before we would even see a shift in its coding standards alone, not to mention implementing STRICT. If this IS the case, what benefits are we getting as developers for taking on extra headaches in making it W3C compliant (who by the way aren't an international elected body - more of a group that have taken liberty to makeup standards). To me, tags like iframe are being used and quite a lot and do do away with them, is in many ways the kiss of death for movements like this, as you will be faught all the way. Even though the tag is a wrapper (defined in DTD) in many ways for the HTML Object it still leaves me wondering why tags like iframe aren't valid? to me they seemed harmless along with tags like B to STRONG so forth. Not to mention the web is looking to shift away from browsers, and move more to native XML packets to run its presentation layer on applications (ie MXML, AXML, XFORMS etc). It just seems lately to be a futile battle, and extensive one and yet no real gains? why would a developer go out of his/her way to learn XHTML? I personally use strict XHTML as its the only real DTD that fixes the Box Model bug in both IE Mozilla (consistencey). Its got added pain, but i'm used to it now.. but others well they'd go too hard pile Regards Scott Barnes http://www.mossyblog.com Brian Cummiskey wrote: Scott Barnes wrote: Are you absolutly positive about iframes not being available in strict XHTML? because I've got one working as we speak? !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; ?? working and being valid are two different things all together. * 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: Future.....(was: Re: [WSG] iFrames vs Scrolling Divs)
Thanks Brian, I haven't really gotten into the Devices side of things as of late, and hand't considered that angle, but I can accept what you've outlined below. I was just curious as i see a constant you gotta go XHTML but we aren't following through with some sort of rewards? either technology wise or coool factors. The sad part is, while i enjoy backward compatibility as it saves your butt more times then none, it can sadly sufficate good / new concepts to death as people keep ignoring the new and stick with the old. I will say that the user of Object tag was a new one for me.. is there any compatibility issues out there for using it that you know off? Regards Scott Barnes Brian Cummiskey wrote: Scott Barnes wrote: Q. I've been on the List for a while now, and while i love the webstandards concept, i'm finding it hard to believe that the web will adjust itself to suite extensions like XHTML? The reason i say this is if we were to make a concious decision to move forward, it would be years 5+ before we would even see a shift in its coding standards alone, not to mention implementing STRICT. If this IS the case, what benefits are we getting as developers for taking on extra headaches in making it W3C compliant (who by the way aren't an international elected body - more of a group that have taken liberty to makeup standards). the most important to me, is search engine rankings. css-driven compliant code are read much easier by the bots. but more so, its for blind and other handicapped folks as well. governnment related sites here in the states are REQUIRED by US law to meet 508 accesibility standards. And even more so, the internet is changing. more and more folks are using palms, cell phones, and other devices to hit the web. that is only gowing each and every day. try throwing a table-based image layout to a text browser on a phone, and your site is worthless. have a full xhtml, or even wap, and mobile devices can read the text. it might not look pretty- but the fact remains that it can STILL be read. To me, tags like iframe are being used and quite a lot and do do away with them, is in many ways the kiss of death for movements like this, as you will be faught all the way. Even though the tag is a wrapper (defined in DTD) in many ways for the HTML Object it still leaves me wondering why tags like iframe aren't valid? to me they seemed harmless along with tags like B to STRONG so forth. they aren't valid because, again, devices as above can't handel them. I hate i frames. i see zero purpse to them. In my opinion, an iframe serves as a hack-job approach to dynamic content. its simply the wrong tool for the job. Not to mention the web is looking to shift away from browsers, and move more to native XML packets to run its presentation layer on applications (ie MXML, AXML, XFORMS etc). It just seems lately to be a futile battle, and extensive one and yet no real gains? why would a developer go out of his/her way to learn XHTML? I shoudl have read ths hwole thing before replying :) seems like we're on the same megahurtz :) the problem with learnign xhtml 1.0 is that, theres next to nothing to leran from html 4.01. all lowercase tags, and a couple properties missing but really, XHTML 1.1 is where it becomes a learning process- its the modularization that the whole web is slowly moving to. http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/ I personally use strict XHTML as its the only real DTD that fixes the Box Model bug in both IE Mozilla (consistencey). Its got added pain, but i'm used to it now.. but others well they'd go too hard pile take a look here: http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=BoxModelHack http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listamatic/about-boxmodel.htm * 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] CSS: writing-mode / MS runs W3C?
Hi Simon, I think Microsoft's overall shift in position towards the browser-ware has evolved with what projects like Mozillas XUL Macromedia FLEX are trying to achieve in that its time to start looking at a XML based solution for building applications. The web browser to date has served its purpose but its still quite low-tech in regards to its overall capabilities in the multimedia region, that and the ability to deliver applications to remote terminals as if they were client-side. I can see Enterprise level corporations and what not, looking to build client based applications that can be deployed on any machine at anytime, as well as not be hit with copious amounts of license issues (that and asset management is a nightmare). The current browser based applications work for now, but as most of you all would gather, the DHTML/FLASH solution has its fair share of problems (mainly time). In comes solutions like Longhorn, were by they are able to provide you with a kind of browser/api to use in order to build better client based applications? So sooner or later, you have to understand that the current browser based solutions will eventually fade way into different technology. So in many ways its probably not a good idea to invest time and money into an aging language such as HTML/CSS? I like how Mozilla is also embracing XUL solutions but still keeping grass roots with Web? I dunno, Microsoft has kept IE low priority probably for the above reason. Of course these are just my whacked theories. -- Regards, Scott Barnes - http://www.mossyblog.com http://www.bestrates.com.au Simon Jessey wrote: I'm afraid you've misinterpreted what I was trying to say, Chris. What I was trying to say is this: Microsoft's dominant market position creates a condition where browser enhancements and innovation are not very important */to Microsoft./* I absolutely and completely agree that they are important to designers, developers, and users alike. At least, however, this lack of innovation and the dominant position has given designers and developers a period of stability. Simon Jessey -- mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web : http://jessey.net/blog/ work: http://keystonewebsites.com/ - Original Message - From: Chris Blown [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 11:15 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS: writing-mode / MS runs W3C? On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 23:55, Simon Jessey wrote: Microsoft's dominant market position creates a condition where browser enhancements and innovation are not very important. Sorry I must disagree. These _are_ important, not just to designers, but to all people who experience web pages on the Internet. * 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] XML Includes?
Heyas,
Still finding my feet with XHTML / CSS. I noticed that in Mozilla (well
through Eric Meyers new book) you can introduce your own tags (ie XML)
and basically in many ways can attach CSS to them (much like you would
with a simple old DIV)
In Internet Explorer this isn't the case? it ignores the tags / css?
eg:
window
titlebarmycontent/titlebar
contentmycontent/content
/window
style
window {
display:block;
left: 200px;
top: 200px;
width: 200px;
height: 200px;
border: 1px solid red;
background-color: yellow;
}
/style
Simple example, works great in Mozilla FireFox (heh go Mozilla) but
fails in IE? I'm using the doctype:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd;
with:
html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; lang=en-US xml:lang=en-US
Anyone care to comment?
--
Regards,
Scott Barnes
-
http://www.mossyblog.com
http://www.bestrates.com.au
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
