[WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

Hi community, we just did some testing of our sites in IE8 beta and got some ahhhs and ohhhs - not because of its standard compliance, rather because all sites seem to be broken: logos disappeared, elements misplaced, Google maps blown up, etc. Did anyone do some more testing with IE8? Do we kno

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

On 29-Apr-08, at 12:40 PM, Jens-Uwe Korff wrote: we just did some testing of our sites in IE8 beta and got some ahhhs and ohhhs - not because of its standard compliance, rather because all sites seem to be broken: logos disappeared, elements misplaced, Google maps blown up, etc. Dare I say

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

Don't fix or change anything in your site to be compatible with a beta version. The beta version is available so that developers can report problems to Microsoft so that any bugs can be fixed for the final release. By changing your code now, you're likely to find that you'll need to change it agai

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

looks like another quagmire is about to open up; funny how I still feel that I am getting over ie6 2008/4/29 Dave Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Don't fix or change anything in your site to be compatible with a beta > version. > > The beta version is available so that developers can report problem

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

Microsoft should save themselves all the hassle and use the Geko engine. There IE still gets shipped with every version of Windows. They have created a nice operating system for general users and by changing their engine to an open source one is not going to decrease sales in their O/S. This isn'

RE: [WSG] linking multiple CSS files

Hi, I've coded a dynamic CSS filter that may be of interest to some of you. It allows for conditional logic, variable substitution, CSS compression, end-of-line comments, setting expires header, and server-side includes. You can download it at: http://www.coolphptools.com/dynamic_css (I

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

Ideas stuff and various work right off the bat with ff and opera tweaking ie can go on for weeks and often requires loads of compromises the list of issues with ie browsers hurts my noggin I can't see m$ using geko though (it would be admitting the competition is better) I wish they would, shame

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

Ha Ha, i like name inferior explorer. Maybe someone should set up the domain name and allow people to comment on I.E for MS to see. I've said it many times, MS try to outdo the competition and invent their own mad functions and methods of doing things. You have Mozilla that are promoting a standar

RE: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Jeffery > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:23 AM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare > What developer on this planet is going to take advantage of a feature thats been put in

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

What developer on this planet is going to take advantage of a feature thats > been put into IE and not Mozilla, or any other browser engine for > that matter. A cynical person might say that group is called "just about everyone who is not subscribed to this email list" ;) -Ben -- ---

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

James Jeffery wrote: What developer on this planet is going to take advantage of a feature thats been put into IE and not Mozilla, or any other browser engine for that matter. Thats like giving one user one thing and another user another. "But- but- but- *everybody* uses Windows! Why would y

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

*>> I've said it many times, MS try to outdo the competition and invent their own mad functions and methods of doing things. You have Mozilla that are promoting a standard and you have MS who are following (to some extent) the standard and also inventing their own.* Maybe a few years ago but Micro

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be pragmatic Intranet developers, who know that they only need to worry about IE, with a specific version, on a specific version of Windows, and know that their bonus depends not on quality but on deadlines. You're limiting the damage, Michael. What about al

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

> Microsoft should save themselves all the hassle and use the Geko engine. > There IE still gets shipped with > every version of Windows. > > They have created a nice operating system for general users and by changing > their engine to an open source > one is not going to decrease sales in their O

RE: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

>-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Harris >Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:48 AM >To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >Subject: Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> That would be pragmatic Intranet developers, w

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

My own experience was that IE8 was rendering surprisingly well. I use conditional comments to fix IE issues, however they where targeting IE lte 7 so IE8 wasn't getting any fixes. But it didn't need to. That's with strict XHTML doctype. Haven't tried any other. -Thom -

[WSG] JS Image Slider

Im looking on creating an image slider. Basically a 400px x 200px box that you can slide along and reveal more images. They will hold the 'latest' image uploads. Each slide will have about 4-5 images, you scoll accross and you view more. I want to do this so that users without Javascript enabled c

Re: [WSG] JS Image Slider

Hi, I recently found this site for that; http://billwscott.com/carousel/ , which btw is build upon Yahoo's YUI. Let me know how it fares, as I still have to implement it myself for my site as well. regards, Maarten On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:21 PM, James Jeffery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Im

Re: [WSG] JS Image Slider

The non-js version could also hold all the images and the css overflow property could be used to force a little scroll bar to scroll through them, almost re-creating the effect your going for. JS would step in to improve... What your saying is fine too. Joseph R. B. Taylor /Designer / Develop

Re: [WSG] JS Image Slider

I considered the using CSS to recreate the effect for users without Javascript enabled, but if i use CSS that will mean that users without CSS will get a bunch of images in a list, which may not be relevant to them. Im assuming (only assuming) that the majority of visitors that will visit the site

Re: [WSG] JS Image Slider

Here is an image of what i mean for everyone else. I have quickly knocked up a youtube box and placed it where it will go on the site. http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3558/newmcvm5.png Theres actually on 3 images per slide. Thanks On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:27 PM, James Jeffery < [EMAIL PROTE

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

On Apr 29, 2008, at 5:22 AM, James Jeffery wrote: What developer on this planet is going to take advantage of a feature thats been put into IE and not Mozilla? Alas, all too many... can you say "ActiveX"? how about ".NET"? Whatcha gonna do when boss/client demands some glitzy gizmo found on

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

Most of what I've seen people put into ActiveX and .NET can be done otherwise by clever developers and still be standards compliant or at least, cross-browser-compliant. If you need to write proprietary code that is browser specific you are not adhering to web standards. either it is import

Re: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare

On Apr 29, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Joseph Ortenzi wrote: Most of what I've seen people put into ActiveX and .NET can be done otherwise by clever developers and still be standards compliant or at least, cross-browser-compliant. If you need to write proprietary code that is browser specific you

RE: [WSG] JS Image Slider

Hi James, I think Joe's suggestion is what you are looking for. To be a little more explicit, use a nested where the outermost is just wide enough to hold 3 images. This will be your viewport. The inner will hold all of the images: .viewport { width: 300px; /* wide enough to handle 3

[WSG] transitional vs. strict

I'm finding myself having to justify my work methods to a boss who has almost zero interest in usability, accessibility or standards. (Though I have managed to get into the long-term plan: "...website that is compliant with W3C standards and Section 508...") One question that has been raise

Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

Andrew Maben wrote: I'm finding myself having to justify my work methods to a boss who has almost zero interest in usability, accessibility or standards. (Though I have managed to get into the long-term plan: "...website that is compliant with W3C standards and Section 508...") One question t

Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

The transitional doctype was created to simply allow an easier "transition" between doctypes as people updated their sites to newer, more advanced doctypes. In the past it meant changing HTML3.2 pages to HTML 4.1. More recently it meant moving towards and XHTML 1x strict doctypes from somethi

Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

Patrick H. Lauke wrote: "Pages that validate as strict are superior to transitional because ___." There's not really a clear-cut answer. Again, speaking personally, I find that using strict helps in my quality assurance of other authors' work, because strict removed most of the

Re: [WSG] JS Image Slider

James Jeffery provided the following information on 30/04/2008 12:27 AM: that will mean that users without CSS will get a bunch of images in a list You have users that block CSS?? I have never come across that. Can you give an instance as to where and why you would cater for these visitors?

Re: [WSG] JS Image Slider

Andrew Freedman wrote: James Jeffery provided the following information on 30/04/2008 12:27 AM: that will mean that users without CSS will get a bunch of images in a list You have users that block CSS?? I have never come across that. Can you give an instance as to where and why you would ca

Re: [WSG] JS Image Slider

An example? Text-only browsers. No visual styles! However, a list of images is exactly what you're serving to the visitor, right? Ugly, yes. Semantically correct? Quite. Furthermore, I'm willing to bet that plenty of text-only users frequently encounter lists of images and wouldn't be throw

Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

Joseph Taylor wrote: For example, I don't use the strict doctype because, its better, cooler etc. I use it because it makes IE6 more predictable as the traditional doctype puts the browser into quirks mode which makes for a few more css display oddities. Hah, blissfully forgot about that on

Re: [WSG] JS Image Slider

I'll chime in to mention that people who intentionally turn off CSS, or use their own specific styles to override defaults represent a TINY percentage of users. TINY. For me personally, testing without CSS is a mute point since I spend a fair amount of time creating a nice naked document to be

RE: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Joseph Taylor > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:32 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict > It'll be a tough argument to make to a non-nerd. Your argument might

Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

> "Pages that validate as strict are superior to transitional because Because the strict doctype helps us follow one of the principles of best practice - "to remove all presentation from markup". To do this fully, we should aim to remove all presentational elements and attributes from our markup.

Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

>> For example, I don't use the strict doctype because, its better, cooler >> etc. I use it because it makes IE6 more predictable as the traditional >> doctype puts the browser into quirks mode which makes for a few more css >> display oddities. > This is not entirely correct. There is a confusi

[WSG] Re: valid video in (x)html?

On Apr 29, 2008, at 1:12 AM, wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote: Subject: valid video in (x)html? I have had a request from a client to include a video on a website. I know nothing about this, except for a simple embedding from youtube. Sadly, the page doesn't validate if I do that. See: http

Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

I have never seen the differences between the two doc types spelled out like this. When I was learning CSS our instructor taught us to use transitional-- less problems she said. I guess I fell into the belief that strict was for those who knew CSS "forward and backward" That strict was unobtainabl

Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

"Pages that validate as strict are superior to transitional because > ___." > "It is important to serve pages that validate as strict because > ___." > ...validation is a quality metric, and we want a quality web presence. Given that you're dealing with someone that has n

Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

I've often referenced this blog post http://www.graphicpush.com/index.php?id=49 I think your answer is there. Good luck! *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup

RE: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

@Ben Buchanan: Are the points you raised true or were you mentioning them as things to feed bottom-line oriented people? The point I'm most interested in is this one: "If they're an SEO type, mention that valid sites tend to index more consistently in search engines (validation doesn't guarantee hi

Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

Ben Buchanan wrote: "Pages that validate as strict are superior to transitional because ___." "It is important to serve pages that validate as strict because ___." ...validation is a quality metric, and we want a quality web presence. Given that you're dealing wit

Re: [WSG] valid video in (x)html?

Designer wrote: I have had a request from a client to include a video on a website. I know nothing about this, except for a simple embedding from youtube. Sadly, the page doesn't validate if I do that. You might also like to check out what is happening with Video in HTML5

Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Andrew Maben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm finding myself having to justify my work methods to a boss who has > almost zero interest in usability, accessibility or standards. (Though I > have managed to get into the long-term plan: "...website that is compliant

Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

Great information and clarification everyone. If anyone hasn't taken an underlying message away from the conversation so far, it is to use HTML 4.01 Strict for you web documents when possible... Joseph R. B. Taylor /Designer / Developer/ -- Sites by Joe, LLC

Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

Hey Dory, There are probably more detailed outline of all the differences but the ones listed are a start. If you are after strict validation, then the W3C's HTML validator is your friend. When you test a document using the tool it will tell you what is invalid and (even though the explanations a

Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

One argument against the use of transitional doctypes is that they're now more than eight years old which makes them about half as old as the Web itself. Do you want to base your site on what was status quo half a Web lifetime ago? Uh, aren't the transitional doctypes pretty much, er, well, ex

Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

> @Ben Buchanan: Are the points you raised true or were you mentioning them > as things to feed bottom-line oriented people? The point I'm most interested > in is this one: "If they're an SEO type, mention that valid sites tend to > index more consistently in search engines (validation doesn't gua

RE: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of russ - maxdesign > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:43 PM > To: Web Standards Group > Subject: Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict > > >> For example, I don't use the strict doctype because, its better, co

Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict

Thierry Koblentz wrote: On top of using a correct Doctype, authors need to make sure that nothing (e.g., XML prolog or HTML comment) comes before the DTD or it will send IE into Quirks mode. "Quirks mode" is the best mode for the old bugger known as IE6, IMO, which is why I make sure to always

Re: [WSG] valid video in (x)html?

My experience tells that Videos and anmimated things should be made in Flash as streaming is the melody to make this the best way. http://www.vivrecotesud.fr/ var so = new SWFObject("swf/visit.swf", "objflash", "352", "242", "6", "#3f"); Ohh i didnt introduce myself... Im Michae