Joe Ortenzi wrote:
standards compliance should not be confused with WCAG conformance.
HTML is a standard WCAG is a guidance that people use as if it were a
standard, which could easily be a standard but is effectively not one.
However, complying with WCAG confers added benefits which
I was not using the term standards in the sense of a standards to be met
then everything is OK, but as a collective of best practices.
Web standards in the sense that I meant it, means designing with usability
and accessibility in mind.
Valid code is a pre-requisite to this.
Usability is the
On Dec 3, 2008, at 8:19 AM, Stuart Foulstone wrote:
Accessibility is an extension of usability to include non-standard
ways of
browsing the web.
Complying with WCAG is step towards accessibility. Careful
consideration
has to be given how one applies WCAG meaningfully.
Research has shown
standards compliance should not be confused with WCAG conformance.
HTML is a standard WCAG is a guidance that people use as if it were a
standard, which could easily be a standard but is effectively not
one. However, complying with WCAG confers added benefits which
standards compliance
Blinking text is against standards in itself, so how can you do it in a
standards compliant way?
On Fri, November 28, 2008 10:45 am, Dave Hall wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 23:11 -0600, Brett Patterson wrote:
What Dave?
I was simply illustrating how to make text blink in a standards
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 23:11 -0600, Brett Patterson wrote:
What Dave?
I was simply illustrating how to make text blink in a standards
compliant way. You never know someone might find such information
useful one day. The example I provided would allow them to avoid using
the ugly non standard
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 13:07 +, Stuart Foulstone wrote:
Blinking text is against standards in itself, so how can you do it in a
standards compliant way?
Using the sample I posted - see below. That validates.
Cheers
Dave
On Fri, November 28, 2008 10:45 am, Dave Hall wrote:
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Hall
Sent: 28 November 2008 20:44
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] the Name attribute
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 13:07 +, Stuart Foulstone wrote:
Blinking text is against standards in itself, so how can you
It may validate, but valid code is just a pre-requisite to achieving
standards compliance.
On Fri, November 28, 2008 8:43 pm, Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 13:07 +, Stuart Foulstone wrote:
Blinking text is against standards in itself, so how can you do it in a
standards compliant
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 10:18 +, David Dorward wrote:
Brett Patterson wrote:
Where could I find a good information site about the
document.images.imageId script line, please?
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001/level-one-html.html#ID-26809268
And if you are trying to
Brett Patterson wrote:
Where could I find a good information site about the
document.images.imageId script line, please?
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001/level-one-html.html#ID-26809268
And if you are trying to code using codes such as
What Dave?
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 6:04 AM, Dave Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 10:18 +, David Dorward wrote:
Brett Patterson wrote:
Where could I find a good information site about the
document.images.imageId script line, please?
So I thought. But why, when using JavaScript can you not target the ID of an
element such as an image? You can target the name, but not the ID, not
without document.getElementById-blah blah blah, so how can it duplicate
it? It seems then, that is does not.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:32 PM,
Brett Patterson wrote:
So I thought. But why, when using JavaScript can you not target the ID
of an element such as an image?
You can.
You can target the name, but not the ID,
Incorrect.
not without document.getElementById
Why would you want to do it without document.getElementById?
Even
Where could I find a good information site about the document.images.imageId
script line, please? And if you are trying to code using codes such as
http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=217502
Just an example. A quick search to find.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:52 PM, David Dorward [EMAIL
I don't why, but XHTML (I am using Strict 1.0 in the below examples), has
deprecated the use of the name attribute. That being said, my question is,
Why was the name attribute deprecated?.
--
Brett P.
***
List Guidelines:
That is strange, the examples didn't show. Any idea as to why?
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Brett Patterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't why, but XHTML (I am using Strict 1.0 in the below examples), has
deprecated the use of the name attribute. That being said, my question is,
Why
Brett Patterson wrote:
I don't why, but XHTML (I am using Strict 1.0 in the below examples),
has deprecated the use of the name attribute. That being said, my
question is, Why was the name attribute deprecated?.
Because (on the elements upon which it was deprecated) it did nothing
except
18 matches
Mail list logo
