A while a go, I wrote a bit about the problems with IE [1], and asked
myself (and anyone reading) some questions about why Microsoft has not
done anything to make IE better in several years.
Several interesting theories are mentioned in the comments, but what I
think is most likely closest
I've produced a simple 3-page website which appears as intended on
Safari, Firefox, Camino and even (gasp!) IE 5.2 for Mac, also Firefox
and Mozilla for PC, but not IE6 for PC. If you look at
www.startwelllearning.co.uk/catalogue.html, you'll see the problem with
the right-hand margin. The
From a very brief look I guess it may be a margin problem because of the
wide image. You may have to include this hack to adjust margins for
different browsers.
.item {
margin-left: 10%;
}
htmlbody .item {margin-left: 20%; }
/*** IE doubles the margin on the float. This
Hi folks,
Good discussion. I'd only like to add that for some of us, myself included, looking at sites is one way we can 'pay back' the help we've gotten. I can't yet help others with problems, so I don't mind checking (when I have time). But I also don't want more posts than necessary.
Best
Hi,
I just really have to say: don't ask for PC users if you
really mean Windows users. I always check that kind of
posts just to find out they are talking about IE, which
does not run on my system (which still is PC).
And usually you are interested from software anyway -
doesn't really matter if
Hope this isn't unrelated, but I would encode the email addy for spam
bots. Page looks good to me, ie6 pc
Bruce
www.bkdesign.ca
Mary Wright wrote:
I've produced a simple 3-page website ...
**
The discussion list for
Steven Clark wrote:
I think you may have the wrong end of the stick on what the initial
post was about. Someone wanted to point out that a site was badly made
and another suggested the sending of this document. All I am
suggesting is that in that circumstance it is neither professional nor
in
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Graham
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 7:12 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] PC IE problem
From a very brief look I guess it may be a margin problem because of the
wide image. You may
Hi all,
If you have any specific concerns please forward them to
info@webboy.net or
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll just mention that you can't write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as it's
a closed list and you'll be rejected posting to it unless you are
subscribed. Sorry Mark :(
I am working on another form
Bruce wrote:
I have used negative margins at various times, but I have a question I
would like to throw out there. I work a lot reconfiguring Movable
Type, and there can be a series of articles down a page. On my main
page, I have a border around each one, but the positioning I used to
have
Can I sue the ATO over this - like the SOCOG case.
http://pki.ato.gov.au/atocdia/welcome.htm
I can't get my digital certificate without installing IE again...
It is GONE!
I dont want it.
I dont want NN either (its good, but I love my firefox)...
Can they force me to download IE to complete my
Hi,
I'm searching for a link posted by a wsg member
some time ago about a css guide for iPod (I don't mean the Westciv one!).
Thank you in advance for any help.
Nicola Rubeo
www.computertime-az.it
Hi, I think you mean this
one:
Downloadable from http://deyalexander.com/resources/podguide/
the WebAccessibility podGuide includes: *
Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG 1.0) * User
Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG 1.0) * Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 1.0) *
A respondant to Roger's blog wrote:
Microsoft is not improving standards support in IE because they want
to discourage the use of the browser as a platform for developing
applications that are not operating system dependant. Improving support
for CSS, PNG, and other standards such as Xforms,
Chris Stratford wrote:
Can I sue the ATO over this - like the SOCOG case.
Deary me...
The government has failed again...
:)
Depends on what laws the austrailian government has in place for web
accessability for government sites. If this was a US or UK government
site, then yes... I'm guessing
On 6 jan 2005, at 19.14, David R wrote:
But I'm convinced Microsoft will make IE7 support standards... why?
Because VS 2005 supports the entire XHTML1.1 and CSS2.1 spec, even if
Internet Explorer 6 doesn't. This would be wasting the VS dev team's
time if they weren't going to make these
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/#Australia WAI country guide
Bruce
David R wrote:
Chris Stratford wrote:
Can I sue the ATO over this - like the SOCOG case.
Deary me...
The government has failed again...
:)
Depends on what laws the austrailian government has in place for web
accessability for
Microsoft has been hyping about web-applications more than you'd
imagine, the MSDN Library is full of articles on the subject. 3 of the
included posters in the 2003 edition are about web-applications.
They don't think about W3C-standards based applications.
They are just using a buzzrword to
Kornel Lesinski wrote:
How *Microsoft* would benefit from supporting XHTML and CSS2?
To play the counter act here...
How does microsoft benefit by offering IE at all? It's free. Updates
are free. It costs them bandwidth for downloads and updates. It costs
them staff time to code, fix, patch,
I think you have to also understand there are many 'Microsoft's' depending on
which department / product you are referring to. The global company name might
be the same, but departments
are segmented and don't necessarily talk to each other.
I've been to a Microsoft presentation where the
Terrence Wood wrote:
Chris, you probably can sue them, but it may well be better to contact
them directly, point out the error of their ways and offer to fix it for
them.
Hmmm
What would result in the bigger monetary gain though? Suing them, or
them paying you to fix it?
Or do both and
What I wondering is, could a comment be used to feed a GIF variant of a
logo to IE to replace a PNG (with alpha) that IE doesn't support?
Don't double your code.
Using apache mod_rewrite and PHP you can make all PNG 'files' to actually
contain GIF, if requested by explorer.
See:
What I wondering is, could a comment be used to feed a GIF
variant of a
logo to IE to replace a PNG (with alpha) that IE doesn't support?
Yes it could be done. For instance, if your general CSS code were something
like:
#wrapper { background-image: url(../images/fall_bk_right.png);}
Don't double your code.
Using apache mod_rewrite and PHP you can make all PNG 'files' to actually
contain GIF, if requested by explorer.
See: http://osiolki.net/i/ossredni
Kornel: Ok, I'm not great with PHP, but if there are some instructions
somewhere, I'm sure I could figure it...I
I would do something along the line of the below perhaps, recently did,
but am wondering if it is a good idea?:
!--[if IE]
style
h1.one(or something)
{visibility:visible}
h1.two(or something else)
{visibility:invisible}
/style
![endif]--
Bruce Prochnau
www.bkdesign.ca
Kornel Lesinski wrote:
Hi all,
Sometime in the near future, I will be embarking on the ambitious
project to convert this site:
http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/CFForum/
To a CSS based layout. Be warned, viewing the source of that may cause
blindness and/or temporary insanity... suffice to say it was handed to
us by a
Hi Everyone,
I am looking for a lean browser based text editor which creates valid
XHTML output.
Basically I would use a normal text area, but the site I am developing
requires the ability to add hyper links, paragraphs, and change the
text style.
I want something that will automatically run
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:39:46 -0500, Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would do something along the line of the below perhaps, recently did,
but am wondering if it is a good idea?:
!--[if IE]
style
h1.one(or something)
{visibility:visible}
h1.two(or something else)
{visibility:invisible}
/style
Chris
Their minimum system requirements
http://pki.ato.gov.au/atocdia/MinSysReq.htm
suggest that Netscape 7.1 is supported. Given that this browser is
basically Mozilla 1.4 it's probable that they have a faulty browser
sniffer*
Threatening to sue them because of a faulty browser sniffer is
Kornel Lesinski wrote:
Using apache mod_rewrite and PHP you can make all PNG 'files' to actually
contain GIF, if requested by explorer.
Actually, with the help of filters, IE can render PNGs properly. With
that in mind, you can use JavaScript in the header to set a cookie and
then have the
Matt wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I am looking for a lean browser based text editor which creates valid
XHTML output.
Basically I would use a normal text area, but the site I am developing
requires the ability to add hyper links, paragraphs, and change the
text style.
I want something that
Agreed, Ryan, it will be a strategic decision.
As much as we may wish to influence the outcome, MS will take the better
course for their business. It's a question of a thousand words or none.
Influence will be market dominated, as simple as that. They're a brilliant
company when it comes to
Tricia Fitzgerald wrote:
Does anyone know of a whimsical font that works in all browsers? I've
tried Kidprint but that does
not work on any of the Mac browsers nor AOL on the pc.
It's not about browsers not supporting a font...it's the fonts
themselves which need to be installed on the user's
Hi,
What do you people reckon should be the semantic markup for a song chart ala
Billboard Top 40? Sample here: http://www.i-bands.net/charts.php (no, I
don't own this site so I can't add a doctype etc etc)
It's a list of songs, so ol is the gut reaction. But what about the
information
To quote Jixor:
So you are the one in error. In the future if you are going to start a
debate type topic make sure to make your point clear. Seeing as you have
created it make sure to read through all the responses and consider what
people have said. Debates on etiquette are probably not
Tricia Fitzgerald wrote:
Does anyone know of a whimsical font that works in all browsers? I've
tried Kidprint but that does
not work on any of the Mac browsers nor AOL on the pc.
font-family: fantasy; --- guaranteed to be 'whimsical' on any browser...
...and also very nasty (think 'Comic
Hello all,
I just finished my redesign of the website of a local dance school.
It¹s a site that has been an eyesore for years so I jumped on the
opportunity for a standards-based redesign when it presented itself a few
months ago.
The URL:
http://www.terpsichore.be
Big deal I can hear you think
Looks good, a big improvement on the old site, especially because you
removed the Java navigation elements. I have just one query, the menus
at the top only appear when clicked, is this the intended behaviour? I
expected that they would appear when the mouse was over them.
I was viewing the site
Wow, you've really made a HUGE improvement there! It looks great now,
even without comparing it to the old site. In fact the old site made
firefox crash for me!
Good job!
Erwin Heiser wrote:
Hello all,
I just finished my redesign of the website of a local dance school.
It¹s a site that has
-Original Message-
From: Erwin Heiser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 7 January 2005 12:07 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Redesigning an eyesore
Hello all,
I just finished my redesign of the website of a local dance school.
The URL:
Hi,
I create two menus, one using px and one using pt. I would like to know
if there is a difference in IE 5.5 , IE 6 and Opera7 between the two menus
and if the two menus appear correctly.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/berryf/Template2.htm
http://www3.sympatico.ca/berryf/Template.htm
Thanks in
I just fired that page up in NN7, but rejected their
applet/certificate. I got this priceless error message:
You have chosen not to trust the ATO.
Please close all browser windows and start again.
You know, I never did trust the ATO ;)
Can I sue the ATO over this - like the SOCOG case.
I
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:43:51 -0500, berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I create two menus, one using px and one using pt. I would like to know
if there is a difference in IE 5.5 , IE 6 and Opera7 between the two
menus
and if the two menus appear correctly.
Thank You for Your advice.
The HTML correction was done but for the font size, what I would like to
know is how it appear on a 800 * 600. If you can send me a print screen it
would be appreciate. The problem using em and % is when use box with fix
size. The font appear sometimes out of the edge
Thanks for all the replies!
I wasn't serious about threatening to sue.
It was just an expression of rage ;)
Thanks for the pointers!
I will definatly let them know!
Cheers!
James Ellis wrote:
Chris
Their minimum system requirements
http://pki.ato.gov.au/atocdia/MinSysReq.htm
suggest that Netscape
berry wrote:
That way I am sure that the font and the design will be always
be the same with different resolution. That way user don't have to
enlarge windows. The design will be always a the good size.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/berryf/Template2.htm
I'm sorry, but you cannot rely on
Try browser cam for a capture: http://browsercam.com/
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 21:55:17 -0500, berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank You for Your advice.
The HTML correction was done but for the font size, what I would like to
know is how it appear on a 800 * 600. If you can send me a print screen
it
How does microsoft benefit by offering IE at all? It's free. Updates
are free. It costs them bandwidth for downloads and updates. It costs
them staff time to code, fix, patch, etc. and they don't get a dime off it.
Rhetorical I guess but it's a good point. MS benefits from ubiquity.
MS
Huh, don't know why, but this quick'n'dirty hack worked:
* html #banner {width: 101.9%;}
--
Jan Brasna :: alphanumeric.cz | webcore.cz | designlab.cz | janbrasna.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
HTMLArea3RC, FCKEditor...
--
Jan Brasna :: alphanumeric.cz | webcore.cz | designlab.cz | janbrasna.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the
Bruce,
Using negative margin is quite mouthful, it may display fine in latest
browsers which supports web standards but if you consider to target
some of those primitive browsers, I think you should be carefeul using
it. :)
**
The discussion
51 matches
Mail list logo
