I'm one of these site owners :)
I can explain it though. Most sites that bear these buttons were
actually compliant when they were launched / created.
However in the real world this sometimes slightly deteriorates when
stuff is added / removed / modified. It has nothing
to do with 'having no
The below code is quite simple but displays very differently on Firefox 1.5 and
Safari 2.0.2 (both on OSX-Tiger.) This issue would probably appear different in
IE too. Which browser is rendering it wrong? (My opinion: Firefox)
A simple fix for Safari is to move the .buttons div inside the
Paul,
on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 at 17:35 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:
You can't use the :hover pseudo class on any element other than an
anchor in IE unfortunately. I don't have time to look too far, but
with a brief search I found this link that mentions it:
Marco van Hylckama Vlieg wrote:
...
In 1 or 2 months I'll be launching a redesign and the site will
probably comply again. After that the same thing will probably happen
again. Such is life. It doesn't have much to do with incompetence or
lack of respect for standards. It's a focus thing
I have noticed Firefox behaving a little differently to IE when using
floated elements inside a fieldset. I think you may need a clearing
div (or other element if you wish) *inside* the fieldset below the
definition list, rather than trying to put the clearing on the
'buttons' div which is outside
Martin,
That works on every site I need to test on, can't
believe the solution is that easy!!
Tested on PC:
IE6, IE5.5, IE5.0, Opera 7, Netscape
6.
Tested on Mac:
IE5.2, Safari, Firefox
Can't thank you enough for that solution, really
appreciate it.
Now I have to go and overhaul all my
Rowan,
I recently discovered this same problem and it is indeed a bug within the
new Firefox. Unfortunately, no one's currently working on it which means
that we're stuck using ugly solutions to fix it. I found that wraping an
extra clearing container around the original within a fieldset works.
Rowan,
Did you try the easy clearing method?
on Thursday, January 5, 2006 at 10:09 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:
CSS:
dt {
float: left;
clear: left;
width: 9.5em;
font-weight: bold;
text-align: right;
}
dd {
margin-left: 9.5em;
}
On 5 Jan 2006, at 8:30 pm, Nick wrote:
I recently discovered this same problem and it is indeed a bug
within the
new Firefox. Unfortunately, no one's currently working on it which
means
that we're stuck using ugly solutions to fix it. I found that
wraping an
extra clearing container
The @media conference returns in 2006
So, who's going, guys? ;)
--
Jan Brasna :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com | www.wdnews.net
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
The @media conference returns in 2006
So, who's going, guys? ;)
I'd really like to be there!!! I'm italian, so I have to decide yet.
I'm also not a professionist: i love web standards but I'm a
geometrician and I work as it.
Jeffrey, Joe, why aren't you there this year too?!? Crying. :D :D
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:07:42 +0100
Marco van Hylckama Vlieg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm one of these site owners :)
I can explain it though. Most sites that bear these
buttons were actually compliant when they were launched /
created.
However in the real world this sometimes slightly
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:07:42 +0100
Marco van Hylckama Vlieg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm one of these site owners :)
I can explain it though. Most sites that bear these
buttons were actually compliant when they were launched /
created.
However in the real world this sometimes
I'd like to know about a site that is XHTML 1.0 Transitional; what would
be the purpose in that, and would you say that should be served as
application-type/xhtml+xml, or text/html? A lot of the reading I've done
has been rather confusing, particularly when I go and see sites served
as XHTML
At 10:24 PM 1/4/2006, Nic wrote:
You go to a site, and it proudly claims xhtml/css/wai compliance. You do a
quick check, and discover that the code wouldn't pass xhtml 1.0 compliance,
let alone the 1.1 strict they claim! Their css is a mess.
...
This upsets me on several levels.
...
Nic,
Leslie Riggs wrote:
I'd like to know about a site that is XHTML 1.0 Transitional;
and what about those XHTML Transitional
DTDs?
Not going to start the debate on whether one should use HTML 4 strict or
XHTML 1.0 strict / 1.1, but as far as transitional doctypes go, i'd say
that they
On 1/5/06, Leslie Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to know about a site that is XHTML 1.0 Transitional; what would
be the purpose in that, and would you say that should be served as
application-type/xhtml+xml, or text/html? A lot of the reading I've done
has been rather confusing,
Patrick wrote:
Any new developments should
really be done in a strict doctype, IMHO.
How difficult is it to jump to strict from transitional doctypes?
Is it a whole other ballgame or just a matter of dotting your t's and
crossing your i's?
-best
kvnmwebn
Hi Nic,
good rant.
valid points.
if someone wants to put their unholy neck on the line and say I'm
compliant then good for them. They need then to be braced for the
subsequent onslaught of did you know comments from actual professionals
who work in that space.
Its like any compliance
kvnmcwebn wrote:
How difficult is it to jump to strict from transitional doctypes?
Is it a whole other ballgame or just a matter of dotting your t's and
crossing your i's?
HTML 4 strict is really just dotting and crossing. for XHTML 1.0
transitional to XHTML 1.0 strict you should really
Hi,
I´m trying build this site, in strict mode, bu i´m having
trouble removing the border of the image inserted in the list.
(the image, is supposed to shift line to the appropriate
line on navigation), can anybody help me with this problem.?
kvnmcwebn wrote:
How difficult is it to jump to strict from transitional doctypes?
Not difficult at all in most cases - unless you need to 'target' links.
- Take a Transitional document and put a Strict DTD on top. HTML4 or
XHTML 1.0.
- Send it through the validator.
- Remove any non-strict
To remove the border on the image you can use css...
img
{
border: 0;
}
On 1/6/06, Jes Bigum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I´m trying build this site, in strict mode, bu i´m having trouble removing
the border of the image inserted in the list.
(the image, is supposed to shift line
Jes Bigum said:
[remove] the border of the image inserted in the list.
li img {border: none}
if the image is just to indicate the current page then you can add the
image through css:
li a#current {
background: url(path/to/image.gif) no-repeat 0 50%;
padding-left: img-width; /* add value in px
Thanks for the great responses so far :)
Marco wrote:
Most sites that bear these buttons were actually compliant when they were
launched / created.
However in the real world this sometimes slightly deteriorates when stuff
is added / removed
/ modified.
That's a fair enough comment. Thing
hello,
try
li img{border:0px;}
-best
kvnmcwebn
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
Thank you all Terrence, Nic and Kvnmcwebn
I got it working. With
li img{border:0px;}
(I´m completly self-trained and have pretty nice gaps in my knowledge.)
I liked -
li a#current {
background: url(path/to/image.gif) no-repeat 0 50%;
padding-left: img-width; /* add value in px */ }
- very
Those coders that are knowingly writing invalid code (be it a trade off or
sheer laziness) should be honest with themselves and stop trying to kid their
viewers. Not only are you (like Nic said) weakening the value of the
button for
everyone but you will likely be found out (and to me - that
Jes Bigum said:
li a#current {
background: url(path/to/image.gif) no-repeat 0 50%;
padding-left: img-width; /* add value in px */ }
I thought your question was about indicating the current item. If you are
after a hover effect try:
li a {
padding-left: img-width;
}
li a:hover {
background:
Patrick said:
and once you go from XHTML 1.0 strict to
1.1 (yes, yes, changing mime type and all that) there are a few
more things to look out for ... not being allowed any character
entities apart from the basic amp; lt; gt; quot; and
apo; - so things like copy; for instance will not be
Looks fine for me on FF 1.5/win. Not sure about 1.0.x. Could it be
the beloved gap below images because of default vertical-align being
baseline problem? Probably not since it works in 1.5, but worth a
shot if you havent tried it. Try setting the image's vertical-align
to bottom.
List of XHTML 1.1 entities, served as application/xhtml+xml :
http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/entities/entities-11.xhtml
I really hope I'm right, or I'm gonna have to go back to a lot of
sites to fix a lot of ldquo;s and such.
**
The
Kenny Graham wrote:
Patrick said:
and once you go from XHTML 1.0 strict to
1.1 (yes, yes, changing mime type and all that) there are a few
more things to look out for ... not being allowed any character
entities apart from the basic amp; lt; gt; quot; and
apo; - so things like copy; for
Hi all,
I've found something that has got me totally stumped.
In IE/Win, this site
(http://gracemeresaleyards.com.au/saleyards/history/) scrolls down an
inch or so on page load. I've got some Browsercam shots here:
http://www.browsercam.com/public.aspx?proj_id=218152
Anyone come across this
On 6 Jan 2006, at 10:50 am, Kenny Graham wrote:
List of XHTML 1.1 entities, served as application/xhtml+xml :
http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/entities/entities-11.xhtml
I really hope I'm right, or I'm gonna have to go back to a lot of
sites to fix a lot of ldquo;s and such.
If
Is anyone able to
tell me why in Internet Explorer the "read more..." link is not positioned where
it should be?
The li
itemis positioned relative, the a link itself is positioned
absolute, right: 0; top: 0; which should place it to the border of the
li item not outside the ol item, in
Kenny Graham wrote:
I really hope I'm right, or I'm gonna have to go back to a lot of
sites to fix a lot of ldquo;s and such.
Philippe wrote:
If you want to support Safari (with application/xhtml+xml), I'm
afraid, you'll have to go back...
If these entities are not allowed when served as
hi following the recent discussion of css image rollovers for a menu/nav list (see http://webstandardsgroup.org/manage/archive.cfm?uid=6BB21CD6-F78A-DE8B-495CD895C0B6A6AB) i wonder if anyone has a suggestion for how one could add "highlight current page" functionality to this nav? my
Patrick wrote:
*browser support* for named entities can be flaky
Sorry I missed post
I'm still surprised that Safari has limited support
Thanks
Jason
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
On 6 Jan 2006, at 1:42 pm, Jason Turnbull wrote:
Kenny Graham wrote:
I really hope I'm right, or I'm gonna have to go back to a lot of
sites to fix a lot of ldquo;s and such.
Philippe wrote:
If you want to support Safari (with application/xhtml+xml), I'm
afraid, you'll have to go back...
Yeah!
The best way to do this is to assign an ID tag to the body.
== Example =
Page1:
body id=page1
a href="" class=link_Page1
a href="" class=link_Page2
/body
Page2:
body id=page2
a href="" class=link_Page1
a href="" class=link_Page2
/body
CSS:
body#page1
41 matches
Mail list logo
