On 5/25/07, Matthew Pennell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
POSH as a concept is not about HTML vs. XHTML, it's about using the correct
semantic elements.
Agreed, when I read the question I thought it was about getting an
editor to use pre-built sections of code to create certain HTML
patterns, but I
On 5/25/07, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not causing validation issues does not make them fine; even if the
vast majority of user agents don't respect it, img / in an HTML
document means An image element followed by a greater than sign.
The HTML specification explicitly advises authors
On 5/29/07, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because, in an HTML document, an XHTML style img tag unambiguously
means An image element followed by a greater than sign.
I still can't see where it says that in the spec, do you need to know
the SGML spec as well? It seems strange that the
On 5/29/07, Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/sgmldecl.html
FEATURES, SHORTTAG YES
I guess from that I should deduce that I do need to know the SGML spec
to know that a slash will terminate a tag?
I hope HTML5 does away with this...
-Alastair
Thanks Liorean,
On 5/29/07, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just in the same way you can't know XHTML if you have no knowledge of
XML, you can't really know HTML 2-4.01 with no knowledge of SGML. You
don't need to know all of SGML however, just the subset that is used
for HTML.
It seems
On 5/29/07, Nick Fitzsimons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The topic under discussion is, as I mentioned in my earlier post,
mentioned in HTML 4.01 at
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.7
as being something with poor support in HTML user agents.
Which I read, thank you, but unless
Steve Green wrote:
The process for commenting is a bit shambolic, and it is not clear that
comments are particularly welcome. There is no stated process, so people
have been commenting in various places in the blogs
If you check the various blogs, you'll see Joe has been following them
closely
Oops, Joe's just posted the comments email address: samurai at the
domain wcagsamurai.org
Apologies,
-Alastair
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe:
On 6/12/07, Gary Barber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know its beta, but at least apple could have a link to an online bug
reporter..
Wasp posted this: http://webkit.org/quality/reporting.html
From the sounds of it, they may get a few entries...
-Alastair
Chris Taylor wrote:
Thanks for the input everyone, it looks like old-school tables with inline
styles is the way to go, unfortunately.
You may be right, if it were me, I'd install an old copy of Frontpage or
dreamweaver and use that... matching the era of the tool with the era of
the browser
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:23:44AM +1000, Webb, KerryA wrote:
If that's an efficient and effective way to publish a document, let them
do it - providing the PDF is properly marked up.
Is there an organisation that systematically produces well marked up accessible
PDFs? I train people in how to
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:23:44AM +1000, Webb, KerryA wrote:
If that's an efficient and effective way to publish a document,
let them do it - providing the PDF is properly marked up.
Is there an organisation that systematically produces well marked up
accessible PDFs? I train people in how
Rick Lecoat wrote:
Do we /know/ that the majority of people have their
default text set according to their requirements, or is it ...
they don't know that there's any other way?
From lots of usability testing (including with people with visual
impairments), and training people (not on
Rob Kirton wrote:
I was informed that they had a far better idea in the pipeline. I'm
not holding my breath...
As others suggested, full page zoom is likely to be it, but I hope they
include Opera's fit-to-width option, or something to the same effect.
Otherwise it won't be any better than
Stuart Foulstone wrote:
Computer screens may have steadily improved (and so has the research) but
human evolution doesn't change so fast that HCI research becomes outdated
in 13 years as you suggest.
Was the decision on default font size actually based on research, or was
it just what they
Does the HTML working group have to take into account accessibility guidelines?
What I mean is, does it have to make alt mandatory because WCAG (any
version) does?
-Alastair
***
List Guidelines:
Lachlan Huntwrote:
the question that still remains is that if allowing the alt attribute to be
omitted when users don't provide any good text isn't the right solution,
then what is? What should the spec recommend to use in these cases?
The problem is differentiating between ignorant and
Mike Brown wrote:
I think the article http://usability.com.au/resources/source-order.cfm
*is* the prevailing wisdom in this matter :)
Which is to say, some testing with a very specific design was used
(with very little content or navigation), and that's all we have to go
on so far.
On 10/17/07, Roberto Gorjão [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you point me to some of your bookmarks or other
resources about it?
http://www.d.umn.edu/itss/support/Training/Online/webdesign/accessibility.html#multimedia
and
http://www.skillsforaccess.org.uk/
-Alastair
On 10/31/07, Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me know if i can help in anyway shape or form as It's not all that bad
Sorry to pick up on this so late, but have you got any information on
the next version from an accessibility point of view?
Version 1 appears to be a non-starter from an
Michael Horowitz wrote:
tabindex determines the order in which people tab through a form.
The default tabindex simply follows the source order, as mentioned before.
I would recommend not specifying the tabindex unless you are prepared
to spend a lot of time doing everything, as it overrides
Michael Horowitz wrote:
tabindex determines the order in which people tab through a form.
The default tabindex simply follows the source order, as mentioned before.
I would recommend not specifying the tabindex unless you are prepared
to spend a lot of time doing everything, as it overrides the
On Jan 11, 2008 7:29 AM, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
col:first-child {width:10em;}
col:first-child+col {width: 5em;}
From memory, I don't think col has children as such, it's quite a headache:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=915
However, a combination of col HTML
Far too long, and his point is buried somewhere...
It is long, but I like the headphone analogy that (I think) makes it
easier to understand the 'economics' of the situation. (Does it count
as economics when the products are free?)
I was very surprised by the IE teams decision to make the new
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 6:00 AM, Michael MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like the view generated source in the Web Developer Firefox plugin,
Firebug is very handy too
For html it will display as HTML (without closing slashes) as that is
how Firefox interprets things sent as text/html. The
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Reference implementation for content marked up in HTML is the W3C
validator...again, confused about CSS/DOM?
Fair point, but his audience is general technical rather than
(knowledgeable) web developers. If you put his post in context of
general programming (pre and
The document could be made available for download as a PDF and also RTF (for
accessibility purposes).
Joe Clark pulled me up on this, and after checking into it, it is
something of a myth that RTF is good for accessibility. RTF has no
structure and (if I remember correctly) no means of
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last time with IE 7, there was no problem and none of the sites I
coded for her break when IE 7 came out. I think this version
targeting thing really got people worry.
Um, could you just not add the meta tag saying 'treat as
if styles are used correctly, RTF files can be used well by screen readers.
RTF doesn't use 'styles' in the way that Word (or HTML) does, it
applies presentation tags, the semantic based styles that Word has
(e.g. Heading 1) are not there. There's an example on the Wikipedia
page:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question wasn't about keeping file extensions in URIs it was about what
file extension the file should have, which I am sure you will agree is still
required as the server needs to know if it is an html, php, css, js,
Ken McInnes wrote:
Most browsers will render this OK, BUT Firefox 3 WILL NOT.
It just renders the page with nothing on it. :-(
I had a similar issue a fwe years ago in IE6, where a script tag with
nothing inside (i.e. script .../script) would cause IE6 to show a
blank screen, although I think
I still use encoded characters in attributes sometimes, for example in
alt text that needs quote makr. I can't think of an example off hand,
but I assume entities are still needed for that?
-Alastair
***
List Guidelines:
32 matches
Mail list logo
