Why,oh why, don't people validate their code and remove their own errors
before complaining about some browser or other doing it wrong.
This is supposed to be Standards list.
On Wed, January 13, 2010 2:34 am, stephanie campanella wrote:
Hey Guys,
I'm experiencing an issue with IEUn
On 13 Jan 2010, at 04:02, c...@fagandesign.com.au wrote:
Now, this Accessibility Appendix lists CSS validation (point 3) as a required
attribute for compliance.
No, it doesn't. The document says, under conformance:
Conformance Level Triple-A: all Priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints
Christian,
You said you've been told to place IE specific rules in a separate
sheet, but you don't mention why you haven't done so.
In the example you provided, I'd do this:
1) move zoom: 1 to your IE6 rule (and to IE7 rule if necessary)
2) place the IE6 and IE7 rules in an IE ONLY sheet
3)
Nick
Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and separate style
sheet.
It's a valid rule that basically says show the screen at 100%. A user style
sheet can still over-ride this rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without
causing other issues. This is what Microsoft
In the example you provided, I'd do this:
1) move zoom: 1 to your IE6 rule (and to IE7 rule if necessary)
2) place the IE6 and IE7 rules in an IE ONLY sheet
3) use a conditional comment to call the IE sheet
Would that work? If so, please explain your reasons for not doing so.
Here are
Nick
Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and separate style
sheet.
It's a valid rule that basically says show the screen at 100%. A user style
sheet
can still over-ride this rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without
causing
other issues.
This is what
The requirement for validation in WCAG 1.0 is contained in checkpoint
3.2,
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar.
Incidentally, checkpoint 3.2 is a requirement for Double-A conformance
in WCAG 1.0.
Elliot Chabot
Web Solutions Branch
House Information Resources
Quoting Nick Stone boa...@nick-stone.com:
Christian,
You said you've been told to place IE specific rules in a separate
sheet, but you don't mention why you haven't done so.
Would that work? If so, please explain your reasons for not doing so.
C) facilitates site maintenance (easy to find
On 13 Jan 2010, at 21:30, Chabot, Elliot wrote:
The requirement for validation in WCAG 1.0 is contained in checkpoint 3.2,
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar.
Err, yes. As I said (and you quoted!):
Checkpoint 3.2 says Create documents that validate to
On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Hi David,
On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
_
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:30 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people
33 matches
Mail list logo
