I do recall reading somewhere that it's possible to link a div to an
external source (it used an attribute like data or src) but I think it
was a Netscape-ism.
you can take it a step further with a server side include:
div id=somescroller
?php include (somefile.php); ?
/div
Scott Barnes wrote:
Are you absolutly positive about iframes not being available in strict
XHTML? because I've got one working as we speak?
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd;
??
working and being valid are two different things
Scott Barnes wrote:
I will say that the user of Object tag was a new one for me.. is there
any compatibility issues out there for using it that you know off?
I understand your thinking, and the whole it's the cool thing to do
but it honestly does have its advantages if used correctly. The SEO
Hugh Todd wrote:
I mean, I'm sure the people in the w3c gang are really smart monkeys,
but like all clusters of people, politics could end up driving it
(whether it be some small hidden demon within who voted No on
something purely because the guy who thought it up made a bad XMAS
party joke
Giles Clark wrote:
font: 12px/19px
How is the split font size being used.
Thanks
You might be asking something else here, but:
12px/19px equates to 12px font size with a 19px line height
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
Hugh Todd wrote:
Brian,
Just to deny that I wrote this. The attribution belongs to Scott
Barnes, I think. My belief is that the W3C is much more accountable
than Scott seems to imagine.
-Hugh
Opps- Thunderbird handels multiple quoted messages poorly. I blame it
fully for that error :)
Gerhard Schoder wrote:
Sorry I forgot to mention:
The sublevels need to be opened below the toplevel element. Something
easily done on a server-side basis, but I'd need it on a
flat-file-stupid system. Thanks again!
Hi Folks!
Could one of you please point me to a vertical menu solution based on
XHTML 2 draft is out. see below.
--
Masayasu Ishikawa wrote:
Hello,
After long editorial work, finally the sixth public Working Draft of
XHTML 2.0 is now available at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722
The HTML Working Group thanks the
Chris Blown wrote:
On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 10:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is the Firefox browser used by Web Developers? What does it have that
makes it a good tool? - over other browsers? Why not Opera?
DOM Inspector
Venkman Javascript Debugger
Edit CSS
Browser Session Saving
Andy Budd wrote:
So I'm interested to hear what you folks think. Do you hack or are you
hack free? If you hack, what methods do you use, why do you use that
method, and more importantly, why do you need it in the first place?
I'm like you... box model, and even that, rarely. I KNOW some
Nick Lo wrote:
http://9rules.com/whitespace/css_redesigns/yahoo_css_redesign.php
Good writeup- but I must say yahoo has done a horid job so far.
HTML Errors: 223
The css validates, but it is horrid.
in 2 days, how could one ever remember what #v or where#v #v4.h appears
in the document?
IMO,
Darren Wood wrote:
I think you're missing the point...agreed the code is well shoddy,
but, as Scrivs says, this is a major step forward for the web. If the
best/most popular site on the web is tableless and moving towards
complete web standards, then it becomes very easy for us to sell
Tony Crockford wrote:
At 09:34 on Thursday, 30 Sep 2004, Mugur Padurean wrote:
Tony Crockford wrote:
I'm a bit confused, if I go to http://www.yahoo.com/ I'm still
seeing the tabled version.
have they got some clever locale sniffing going on or what?
(I'm in the UK)
Here you go:
Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
Let's give Yahoo our feedback. They provide a way to receive feedback using the link
under the search box. True, our comments may fall on deaf ears, or they may not. But
from my experience, numbers do matter, so I filled out the feedback form and voiced my
I'm producing a small video, and per request, he wants it in wmv format.
What's the extent of apple/linux guys being able to view this format?
are their codecs for non-windows systems?
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
Chris Kennon wrote:
Hi,
If the client is at all flexible, I would suggest looking into .flv. The
flash video fromat is taking off like wildfire, and with the flash
player penetration, it is a stable solution:
http://www.flashstreamworks.com/
Looks great- But i don't have flash, nor have even
not sure if this will help or give a pointer, but we use this code to
keep users from hitting the refresh key and escape keys. Our enviroment
(3rd party web browser-like interface) doesn't have a back button, so
we never dealt with that issue. it might be able to be tweaked for the
back
The Man With His Guide Dog At The Tent Store wrote:
I know I should read about Robots from the Robot FAQ web site. However, I am
a little pressed for time right now. What do I need to web sites to stop
Robots reading my web sites I maintain? Thank you.
in robots.txt
User-agent: *
Disallow:
John Ozturk wrote:
The point of putting metatags on pages is mostly for search engines.
6 years ago this was the case, but all the good ones today, this is
simply untrue. content drives search engines more than meta tags do.
in fact, i don't even run meta tags anymore and have multiple top 10
Nick Verstappen wrote:
Is the noscript tag not allowed anymore in XHTML 1.0 Strict? I'm trying
to use it, but it does not validate. If it IS allowed, what markup
should I use to make it validate? Many thanks!
Nick, you need to format it like this:
div
script type='text/javascript'
http://PirateQueen.tk http://piratequeen.tk/
let me know what you think :)
admin, close this thread. it has NOTHING to do with webstandards.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
Todd Baker wrote:
hang on a sec.. Ill just pick my jaw up of the ground
Thats amazing.
those bubbles own :)
seriously, awesome job.
But, its not balanced at all. Until i got to the bottom i was like ok,
what's the big deal?. Perhaps thats a feat in and of itself...
I like:
http://www.webwhirlers.com/colors/wheel.asp
has a colour wheel and some theory behind colors.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the
Chris Stratford wrote:
hey group,
odd problem here:
www.gamerdb.net
using IE, that page seems to take AGES to load the background.
It also scrolls funny, and when you have it in the background with
another app in half-screen view over it, and switch back to it, it
almost like re-loads it self
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,
Paul wrote:
I have been writing html code for awhile now and and starting to realize
how inaccessible and non-web compliant my pages are. I have always hand
written code in Edit Plus 2, is there a better editor I can use for web
standards ( like Dreamweaver MX ? ) and where should I start for
Alan Trick wrote:
I've been working on redesigning a website and I have a bug where there
is a bit of space at the top of the body that won't go away. I'm not
sure it it's padding or margin or what, but I tried setting all of those
to 0 and it wouldn't go away
Do you have a form on the page?
Alan Trick wrote:
Ideally you can use something like PHP and check
the HTTP_ACCEPT
the following came across a list (maybe this one) a while back
?php
//Sends the correct MIME type depending on the browser
//Created on 11th November 2004
//Amended on n/a
//Version 0.1
$charset = iso-8859-1;
Alan Trick wrote:
If I want a link that points to whatever page i am alread at (without
any querystrings I can use a href='' (for example, I'm at
index.php?start=10 and I want to go to index.php)
Is this allowed?
Not sure, but, why not just use a href=?= $PHP_SELF; ?
thats pretty neat! it says it doesn't work in ie, but i see the
skeleton in it... strange.
David Laakso wrote:
Ah, the possibilities...?
http://biocandy.dk/test.html
And it works in Opera8, too!
Sorry. I think temptation exceeds my better judgement.
Rgards,
David
Kerri McKenna wrote:
Hi everyone,
I realize that /* */ are used to add comments to CSS, but I'm not
clear on what /* \*/ means, or what the single asterisk is used for.
/* */ pairs alone are comments, yes, but they are also used as hacks
when they are used in the right sequence. Some browsers
Nick Gleitzman wrote:
On 12 May 2005, at 10:44 PM, Tom Livingston wrote:
Could be an Ooops.
No, not at all. Even if there's no CSS that references it, it provides a
hook if you *do* want to style that element individually later on... I
always give my nav links unique IDs for that purpose.
it
Erica Jean wrote:
Is there somewhere I could download older browsers for testing by chance?
http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=msie
http://wp.netscape.com/download/archive/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
Mike Whitehurst wrote:
is this mailing list for anything other than helping novice designers
with their hacks?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is a pretty much catch-all for
web/html/php/sql/asp/apache.javascript/flash help. sign up.
http://www.evolt.org
Zulema wrote:
Hi all,
I got this link from a friend at work and wanted to pass it on ;)
Migrate apps from Internet Explorer to Mozilla
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/wa-ie2mozgd/
Funny, I'm always trying to fuge it to work for IE, not the other way
around as the article
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Hi all,
I'd appreciate your feedback about this technique that does not rely on
hooks; it only uses the href attribute...
http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/popups.asp
Looks good Thierry.
One thing though-- what happens to mailto: links?
i know in an *old* switcher
Janelle Clemens wrote:
Can you explain what the slash in your example is (body {font:
x-small/130% Veranda, Arial, san-serif;}).Is this a browser hack?
130% in this case is the line height. it's short hand for:
body {
font-family: verdana, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
line-height:
kvnmcwebn wrote:
hello,
I
how can i get this div to scale to 95% of
the window height without filling
it with (invisible) content.
div.logo {
background: url(../LOGO.gif)
bottom right no-repeat;
height:95%; margin: auto 0 0 0;
}
This doesn't work, because it has no idea what 95% of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't speak to iframes because I use the CSS overflow style, which provides
the same basic
functionality, but requires using absolute positioning,
For the record, the div + css overflow does NOT have to be absolute
position.
It can be block, or relative, or
Robert Moreno wrote:
AS SEEN ON OPRAH! $40K IN YOUR PAYPAL ACCOUNT!
As seen on WSG! BANNED!
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the
russ - maxdesign wrote:
One of the best fully compliant sites I have seen is:
http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbsite/
hehe- classic :p
Hi all,
Sorry to ask a silly question, but is there a really good 'Fully Compliant'
sample site I could see somewhere?
try csszengarden.com
For instance, they'll put a ul inside a div id=menu, just so that they can style the ul, instead of just giving the ul itself an id.
I never really noticed this, but I tend to code this way too. Here's a
small sample i've been playing with:
div id=wrapper
div id=header
Bert Doorn wrote:
I'd even drop id=header and just style the h1 element. Unless you use
more than one h1 per page...
Good point, Bert.
Time to put this mark-up on a diet.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
Christian Montoya wrote:
I don't think b/b is valid. Just do another span, with {
font-weight:bold; }
b tags are still valid in xhtml1.0 strict, but they don't posess any
semantic value, which is why moving to strong is the preferred mark-up.
Helmut Granda wrote:
Is it possible to turn a table grid into a full CSS grid?
I have been looking for tutorials or some one who covers the subject, but
most places talk about using tables...
Something like this
| a | b | c | d |
| e | f | g | h |
Helmut Granda wrote:
Thanks for your feedback guys. So those who insist in creating table-less
layouts can not be done so all the time, there are times when you HAVE to
use tables or it wont work.
Would that statement be correct?
No. It's avoiding tables for positioning of elements that
Peter Leing wrote:
I'm unable to duplicate this.
Me either. Google's fonts haven't changed for me, nor alistapart.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some
Chris Dimmock wrote:
*Google's home page doesn't
validate and that's mostly by design to save precious bytes.
So, he's saying
font color=red loads faster than font color=red
?
I'd like to see some documented proof of this.
The homepage of google is only a couple lines of code... but yet
Francesco wrote:
Multiply those two by millions of hits every day
and we're talking big bandwidth!
Good point. I didn't even think about it like that.
I wonder how many visits google gets in a day...
**
The discussion list for
Stephen Stagg wrote:
I WAS hoping that a couple of kind people might look at their server
logs or stats and read off the resolution and % data for me.
my stats are here:
http://www.sitemeter.com/default.asp?action=statssite=s11hondaswapreport=73
based on roughly 500,000 page views a month
Michael Wilson wrote:
I was surprised to see (in the data
Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large
percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution).
Isn't 1280x960 mostly on laptops? i don't even have that option on my
machine (basic intel built
Taco Fleur - Pacific Fox wrote:
I am looking for some ideas on how to create a JavaScript/CSS fly-out
menu, the dreaded day has come that a client finally insisted on using one!
Has anyone got some ideas code samples etc.? Any help would be much
appreciated.
try the son of suckerfish.
Todd Gleaton wrote:
Hello All,
I am using the p align='justify' to justify my text. I am getting a
huge break between
the picture above and where the text starts with the tag mentioned
above. What is the
best way to rid the white space? I've seen this problem a lot but have
come to no
I just stumbled upon this: http://code.google.com/webstats/index.html
Based on commonly used classes and such, they are suggesting new html
markup.
For example, they mention that footer is used a lot, and are thus
suggesting a footertag/footer.
Tom Livingston wrote:
p style=background-color:#f5f6f8;a href=# target=_blankGlobal
Interprint/a/p
There aren't any div#main or div.links ANYWHERE in the html you pasted.
I'm assuming they are outer containers.
Add the !important declaration to the inline style. That should
over-ride
Roberto Santana wrote:
Hello,
Which unit is better for web site font size? em px % ...
Better is like beauty-- it's in the eye of the beholder.
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=UsingFontSize
**
The discussion list for
Minh D. Tran wrote:
My personal preference has always been pt. I've looked at many
professional source codes and alot of them uses px or % to measure size
of items (divs, img, etc), em for positioning, and pt for font sizes.
Minh
pt is for PRINT media, not screen.
found this interesting--
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20060206/tc_pcworld/124621
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting
Bert Doorn wrote:
The main idea is that one should not open new windows at all, leaving
it up to the user to decide, which is why the target attribute was
removed.
But if you want to (or have to), either go back to transitional or
use javascript. You may find some discussions about it in
Bob Schwartz wrote:
Do database driven, dynamically created asp pages pass muster for
accessibility?
At the end of the day, no matter the server-side language used, the end
result is HTML pages.
I suppose if I could see the devices handicapped people use to surf, I
would better understand
If you guys haven't seen already, phpbb re-did their boards in XHTML
strict, table-less design.
http://www.phpbb.com/community/
I'm curious mostly to your thoughts on how they did their main forum
listing.
definition lists inside of unordered lists.
code trimed:
ul class=topiclist
Benedict Wyss wrote:
People need to have auto responders for business reasons, does this
mean we say people on the list have to send and receive from a web
mail address not a work address?
I don't think View - Options - Uncheck 'request read receipt' box
is too much to ask before clicking on
I've been using View Larger Image.
Perhaps even view is the wrong term now that I think about it. But
wouldn't those with sight disabilities pick up on the alt and title tags
of the img and href and ignore clicking on it in the first place?
something like this:
a href=large.jpg
There was a huge topic on digg about this (that i started :D ) after
yahoo released their new interface. Lot's of interesting comments in
that thread.
http://digg.com/programming/Is_it_Time_to_Abandon_800x600_
link to blog post (as it has changed since the digg):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering how members here feel about the accessibility of Fly
Out menus. The type I'm talking about are CSS based, ie no JavaScript
but I'd be interested to hear what people think about those that
utilise JavaScript.
The suckerfish menus are pretty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry but I don't agree...to a point. As a web designer and user myself, I
prefer opening another window IF it is to a different website that I am
referring them to. That way the customer doesn't go wondering thru the other
website and forget to come back to mine.
i have some data
1 | A
2 | B
and so on in a 1-to-1
I'm considering using a DL as A defines the symbol 1
but at the same time it is tabular data.
Thoughts?
***
List Guidelines:
Koen Willems wrote:
To my opinion it would depend on the fact if there is only a relation
between the data or if one is defining the other.
There is no hard correlation between them.
the data would be similar to this:
@ | at
$ | dollar sign
Going like that, its easy to see that column
Alexander Uribe wrote:
If anyone can help with the following questions, that would be greatly
appreciated
do your own homework.
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe:
Michael Horowitz wrote:
select name=subcategory id = subcategory
onchange=showSubcategory2(document.getElementById('category').value,document.getElementById('subcategory').value)
try this:
select name=subcategory id=subcategory
Alexander Uribe wrote:
I've created a page on a site that has a form for customers to submit
information.
I want the information to be emailed to me but I don't want to use the
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] as it brings up outlook express.
Does anyone know what I will need to make sure it
David Hucklesby wrote:
I get a mostly black and white page in Opera, and a brightly colored
page in Firefox.
I'm seeing black and white in firefox. odd.
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Anders Nawroth wrote:
// in the beginning of the URI says this is a network path.
I have no idea of how the browser support for this is, or how they
choose to interpret it.
scanalert/hackersafe publishes their badges with the img
src=//path/image.gif / method.
I've yet to see a problem
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:
Michael Persson wrote:
What do you people, professionals and hobby standardists think about full
flash websites?? where is the usability and accessibility for flash in
general??
Hate 'em.
I usually look in the footer for 'html/lite version' link.
If there isn't one, i'll probably end up
Christian Snodgrass wrote:
Yet another thing that is Facebook specific that I just thought about.
I may be overstating this, since I have no actual statistics to back
it up, but I'd wager that a very large part of Facebook's population
is from the more tech-savvy generations, so their usage
76 matches
Mail list logo
