Re: [WSG] Large Background Images

[David Hucklesby]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:11:29 -0400, Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
>> bandwidth. However standards are still a concern, what perils of  wisdom for 
>> using a
>> "full-page" BG can the list cultivate?
>>
>
> Hard on those with a slow connection, but I cannot foresee another issue 
> unless the
> background is a big animated GIF ;-)
>
> You can offer a removal tool for those users easily enough. I do that on my 
> hosting
> company's site [1] [...]
>
> This particular changer uses PHP and a cookie to manage the option. It places 
> the new
> styles in the head with a single property: background-image : none; applied 
> to the
> various elements. The link to it is on the sidebar under "Page Tools" -- the 
> link says
> Remove Backgrounds.
>
> [1] http://gbhxonline.com
>
~

Nice solution, Mike.

Now wouldn't the Web be a kinder, gentler place, if all web sites were
designed so thoughtfully?

I notice the BBC has two links at the top of each page:
"Low graphics" and "Accessibility help."

Cordially,
David
--



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[XStandard]

Nikita wrote:
> I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will
> not get the result you expect.
Comes back as valid HTML, as I expected. The validator did flag "/>" as 
warnings which it did not a few years back when the example was originally 
created. But W3C's validator warning messages are overly cautious - it still 
warns about the use of BOM which was a problem in the 90's.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com


 Original Message 
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 10:51 PM
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>>  Nikita wrote:
>>  > the META tag would have to end in a /> and then it
>>  > wouldn't be valid HTML anymore.
>>  Sure it would. It may not be in the spec but it's a de facto standard.
>> Even the W3C validator will accept it as valid HTML.
> 
> I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will not get
> the result you expect.
> 
> 
>>   Original Message 
>>  From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
>>  Date: 2008-05-13 7:49 PM
>>  > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
>>  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  >> Hi Nikita,
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>  > Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
>>  >>  > XHTML 1.1-formatted code
>>  >>  Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template 
>> written for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot:
>>  >>
>>  >>  
>> http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif
>>  >
>>  > Hi Vlad,
>>  > OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't
>>  > valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a /> and
>>  > then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good
>>  > example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch
>>  > between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be
>>  > lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works
>>  > in HTML.)
>>  >
>>  > The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've
>>  > suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many
>>  > Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this
>>  > list, that seems pretty significant.
>>  >
>>  > Cheers
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >>  Original Message 
>>  >>  From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >> Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
>>  >>  > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
>>  >>  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  >>  >> HTH wrote:
>>  >>  >>  >...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>>  >>  >>
>>  >>  >>> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>>  >>  >>  >application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>>  >>  >>  >you're generating two copies of all of your content
>>  >>  >>  Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to 
>> generate one copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any 
>> version of HTML as you like.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
>>  >>  > what do you mean then by "serve it as any version of HTML"? Are you
>>  >>  > talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
>>  >>  > serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >>  HTH wrote:
>>  >>  >>  > Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
>>  >>  >>  > get done correctly
>>  >>  >>  At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
>>  >>  >>  http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
>>  >>  > result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
>>  >>  > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
>>  >>  > indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
>>  >>  > preference indicators ("q=..."). It's valid for a client to indicate
>>  >>  > that it accept both text/html and  application/xhtml+xml but prefers
>>  >>  > the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
>>  >>  > correctly.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
>>  >>  > it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
>>  >>  > But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
>>  >>  > getting it right most of the time.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
>>  >>  > on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
>>  >>  > involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
>>  >>  > standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > Cheers
>>
>>
  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ***

Re: [WSG] Definition lists for testimonials

[Jason Ray]

The W3C has an example of the use of the cite and quote elements here:
http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml2/spec-examples/mod-text/cite-ex01.xhtml

Or you can read all about quotations here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h-9.2.2

You could avoid the blockquote and use a paragraph depending on the length
of the quoted text. Only use the q element if it is an inline quote (i.e., a
short quote). If you want a lengthy quote, use the blockquote.

An inline quote example:



http://www.comany-url.com";>Company XYZ says You are the best!



A block level quote example (as Mike indicated above):




I have a lot of things to say about this guy. He's done a really great
job! http://www.company-url.com";>--- Company XYZ




You can also add an anchor around the company name if you want to link to
their website. I don't believe the cite *attribute* (as opposed to
*element*or 'tag') is compulsory if you're not referring to an online
source, but I'm
not entirely certain.

Jason

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Rick Lecoat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> On 13 May 2008, at 19:48, Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:
>
>  Don't forget the cite element too. If a source isn't online you wouldn't
> > use the cite attribute, but the element will still help with proper
> > attribution.
> >
>
> Mike, you're bang on the money: I had indeed completely forgotten about
> the cite element, and it's just the tool for the job here. And thanks for
> confirming what I already suspected -- that the list was over-egging the
> pudding.
>
> Peculiarly, I immediately (in shame) went to O'Reilly's 'HTML & XHTML -
> The Definitive Guide' to refresh my memory about the cite element and
> discovered that it appears to not be listed in the index at all. Attribute:
> yes, element: no. Weird.
>
> Thanks again, and to everyone else who responded.
>
>
> --
> Rick Lecoat
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] help with menu positioning

[tee]

On May 13, 2008, at 7:39 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:


tee wrote:
My brain isn't working. I thought I  have the answer but it's not  
working :-(

http://lotusseedsdesign.com/menu.html


Missing base-position...

#menu li a {background-position: left top;}

Georg


Georg, thanks for the rescue again, as you have always do :-)
Tell me, what do you like for Christmas gift ?

tee

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[Nikita The Spider The Spider]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Nikita wrote:
>  > the META tag would have to end in a /> and then it
>  > wouldn't be valid HTML anymore.
>  Sure it would. It may not be in the spec but it's a de facto standard.
> Even the W3C validator will accept it as valid HTML.

I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will not get
the result you expect.


>   Original Message 
>  From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
>  Date: 2008-05-13 7:49 PM
>  > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
>  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >> Hi Nikita,
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>  > Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
>  >>  > XHTML 1.1-formatted code
>  >>  Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template 
> written for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot:
>  >>
>  >>  
> http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif
>  >
>  > Hi Vlad,
>  > OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't
>  > valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a /> and
>  > then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good
>  > example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch
>  > between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be
>  > lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works
>  > in HTML.)
>  >
>  > The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've
>  > suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many
>  > Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this
>  > list, that seems pretty significant.
>  >
>  > Cheers
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >>  Original Message 
>  >>  From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
>  >>  > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
>  >>  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >>  >> HTH wrote:
>  >>  >>  >...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>  >>  >>
>  >>  >>> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>  >>  >>  >application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>  >>  >>  >you're generating two copies of all of your content
>  >>  >>  Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to 
> generate one copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any 
> version of HTML as you like.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
>  >>  > what do you mean then by "serve it as any version of HTML"? Are you
>  >>  > talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
>  >>  > serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?
>  >>  >
>  >>  >
>  >>  >>  HTH wrote:
>  >>  >>  > Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
>  >>  >>  > get done correctly
>  >>  >>  At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
>  >>  >>  http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/
>  >>  >
>  >>  > My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
>  >>  > result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
>  >>  > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
>  >>  > indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
>  >>  > preference indicators ("q=..."). It's valid for a client to indicate
>  >>  > that it accept both text/html and  application/xhtml+xml but prefers
>  >>  > the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
>  >>  > correctly.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
>  >>  > it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
>  >>  > But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
>  >>  > getting it right most of the time.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
>  >>  > on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
>  >>  > involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
>  >>  > standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Cheers
>
>
> >>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
>
>
>  ***
>  List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>  Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  ***
>
>



-- 
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

Re: [WSG] Large Background Images

[Mike at Green-Beast.com]

Hi Chris,

bandwidth. However standards are still a concern, what perils of  wisdom 
for using a "full-page" BG can the list cultivate?


Hard on those with a slow connection, but I cannot foresee another issue 
unless the background is a big animated GIF ;-)


You can offer a removal tool for those users easily enough. I do that on my 
hosting company's site [1] because with the masthead and background images 
and all, it could be hard on dial-up and slower DSL users. Granted they 
still have to load the page initially (it's usable without backgrounds but I 
want them on page load for aesthetics), but it's helpful to them when they 
explore the site and on return visits. This is one way to handle the 
conundrum of being backwards compatible, so to speak.


This particular changer uses PHP and a cookie to manage the option. It 
places the new styles in the head with a single property: background-image : 
none; applied to the various elements. The link to it is on the sidebar 
under "Page Tools" -- the link says Remove Backgrounds.


[1] http://gbhxonline.com

Respectfully,
Mike Cherim





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[XStandard]

Nikita wrote:
> the example you provided isn't valid XHTML.
I think you may have misunderstood. The example in this screen shot:
http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif

.. shows how to embed XHTML 1.1 content into an HTML 4.01 Transitional page 
layout. So the result should be valid HTML 4.01 Transitional.

Nikita wrote:
> the META tag would have to end in a /> and then it
> wouldn't be valid HTML anymore.
Sure it would. It may not be in the spec but it's a de facto standard. Even the 
W3C validator will accept it as valid HTML.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com



 Original Message 
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 7:49 PM
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Nikita,
>>
>>
>>  > Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
>>  > XHTML 1.1-formatted code
>>  Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template written 
>> for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot:
>>
>>  
>> http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif
> 
> Hi Vlad,
> OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't
> valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a /> and
> then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good
> example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch
> between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be
> lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works
> in HTML.)
> 
> The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've
> suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many
> Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this
> list, that seems pretty significant.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> 
>>  Original Message 
>>  From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
>>
>>
>> Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
>>  > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
>>  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  >> HTH wrote:
>>  >>  >...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>>  >>
>>  >>> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>>  >>  >application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>>  >>  >you're generating two copies of all of your content
>>  >>  Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate 
>> one copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of 
>> HTML as you like.
>>  >
>>  > I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
>>  > what do you mean then by "serve it as any version of HTML"? Are you
>>  > talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
>>  > serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >>  HTH wrote:
>>  >>  > Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
>>  >>  > get done correctly
>>  >>  At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
>>  >>  http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/
>>  >
>>  > My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
>>  > result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
>>  > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
>>  > indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.
>>  >
>>  > The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
>>  > preference indicators ("q=..."). It's valid for a client to indicate
>>  > that it accept both text/html and  application/xhtml+xml but prefers
>>  > the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
>>  > correctly.
>>  >
>>  > It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
>>  > it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
>>  > But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
>>  > getting it right most of the time.
>>  >
>>  > There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
>>  > on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
>>  > involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
>>  > standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.
>>  >
>>  > Cheers
>>  >
> 
> 
> 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[James Pickering]

>From time to time over the past several years I have served web pages as XHTML 
>1.0 with content (MIME) type text/html to IE Browsers and with content (MIME) 
>type application/xhtml+xml to Browsers that recognize that content type -- via 
>Content Negotiation. 

My current Home Page -- http://jp29.org/ -- is served in this manner. I compose 
the great majority of my pages using HTML 4.01 Markup (a few using ISO-HTML) 
and they are naturally served as text/html.

I actually started using Content Negotiation for XHTML documents as an 
experiment to see how the concept worked in practice.

I currently also employ Content Negotiation for my XHTML+RDFa test page -- 
http://jp29.org/rdfaprimerx.php -- there is no "Appendix C" provision (ala 
XHTML 1.0) for XHTML+RDFa -- if such documents are served as text/html the W3C 
Validator adds the following generic note to the successful validation report 
(quote):

"Warning Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type

The document is being served with the text/html Mime Type which is not a 
registered media type for the XHTML + RDFa Document Type. The recommended media 
type for this document is: application/xhtml+xml" . The W3C is currently 
serving some of their XHTML+RDFa documents as Content-Type text/html.

James

[


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Large Background Images

[Chris Kennon]

Hi,

The use of large backgrounds has become more common given expanding  
bandwidth. However standards are still a concern, what perils of  
wisdom for using a "full-page" BG can the list cultivate?


Chris


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[dwain]

thanks for the info.
cheers,
dwain

On 5/13/08, Dean Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 13, 2008, at 3:44 PM, dwain wrote:
>
>
> > where is it and is it incorporated into firefox yet?
> > dwain
> >
> > On 5/12/08, Dean Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 12, 2008, at 11:13 PM, dwain wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in the
> > > > w3c css validator.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not if you use the CSS level 3 validator ;)
> > >
> >
> >
>
>  It's at:
>
> 
>
>  Under profile, select CSS 3
>
>  Don't know about Firefox.
>
>
>
>
>
> ***
>  List Guidelines:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  Unsubscribe:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>  Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


-- 
dwain alford
"The artist may use any form which his expression demands;
for his inner impulse must find suitable expression."  Kandinsky


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[Dean Matthews]

On May 13, 2008, at 3:44 PM, dwain wrote:


where is it and is it incorporated into firefox yet?
dwain

On 5/12/08, Dean Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On May 12, 2008, at 11:13 PM, dwain wrote:


and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in  
the

w3c css validator.



Not if you use the CSS level 3 validator ;)




It's at:



Under profile, select CSS 3

Don't know about Firefox.




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[Nikita The Spider The Spider]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Nikita,
>
>
>  > Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
>  > XHTML 1.1-formatted code
>  Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template written 
> for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot:
>
>  
> http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif

Hi Vlad,
OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't
valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a /> and
then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good
example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch
between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be
lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works
in HTML.)

The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've
suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many
Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this
list, that seems pretty significant.

Cheers



>  Original Message 
>  From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
>
>
> Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
>  > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
>  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >> HTH wrote:
>  >>  >...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>  >>
>  >>> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>  >>  >application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>  >>  >you're generating two copies of all of your content
>  >>  Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate 
> one copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of 
> HTML as you like.
>  >
>  > I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
>  > what do you mean then by "serve it as any version of HTML"? Are you
>  > talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
>  > serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?
>  >
>  >
>  >>  HTH wrote:
>  >>  > Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
>  >>  > get done correctly
>  >>  At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
>  >>  http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/
>  >
>  > My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
>  > result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
>  > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
>  > indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.
>  >
>  > The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
>  > preference indicators ("q=..."). It's valid for a client to indicate
>  > that it accept both text/html and  application/xhtml+xml but prefers
>  > the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
>  > correctly.
>  >
>  > It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
>  > it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
>  > But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
>  > getting it right most of the time.
>  >
>  > There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
>  > on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
>  > involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
>  > standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.
>  >
>  > Cheers
>  >



-- 
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%

[Sam Sherlock]

pardon me if I have missed something but have you tried posting this
question to the swfObject list over at google code?

also the comments made by Rick about flash scale mode are worth pursuing,
perhaps stage.align may help.

also may be helpful
http://www.actionscript.com/Article/tabid/54/ArticleID/full-browser-flash-part-1/Default.aspx

- S

2008/5/13 Rick Lecoat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On 13 May 2008, at 11:39, jay wrote:
>
>  If you make the height:100% then it is 100% of the parent - since your
> > > flash file does not stretch to the that height the background shows which
> > > you have declared as white:
> > > var so = new SWFObject("main.swf", "main", "100%", "100%", "8",
> > > "#ff"); <--
> > >
> > > You need to either make the background black or set the height of
> > > #flashcontent to the height of the flash content.
> > >
> >
> On 13 May 2008, at 17:49, Laert Jansen wrote:
>
>  the problem isn´t the color of that areais that that area
> > shouldn´t exist..I left it white on purpose just to show the area
> > apart from the rest...
> >
>
>
> Leart;
>
> What Jay was saying (I think) is that your SWFObject setup is coded to go
> full screen. Your  flash file (778 x 560 px) will scale to fit but only with
> it's original height:width ratio. So unless your browser viewport is
> precisely the same ratio of heigh to width as the flash file, you will get
> 'dead space' either top and bottom or on each side. Like if you watch a
> widescreen film on a traditional-size (4:3) TV, you get black bands top and
> bottom.
>
> --
> Rick Lecoat
>
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[dwain]

where is it and is it incorporated into firefox yet?
dwain

On 5/12/08, Dean Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 12, 2008, at 11:13 PM, dwain wrote:
>
>
> > and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in the
> > w3c css validator.
> >
>
>  Not if you use the CSS level 3 validator ;)
>
>
>
>
>
> ***
>  List Guidelines:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  Unsubscribe:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>  Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


-- 
dwain alford
"The artist may use any form which his expression demands;
for his inner impulse must find suitable expression."  Kandinsky


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Definition lists for testimonials

[Rick Lecoat]

On 13 May 2008, at 19:48, Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:

Don't forget the cite element too. If a source isn't online you  
wouldn't use the cite attribute, but the element will still help  
with proper attribution.


Mike, you're bang on the money: I had indeed completely forgotten  
about the cite element, and it's just the tool for the job here. And  
thanks for confirming what I already suspected -- that the list was  
over-egging the pudding.


Peculiarly, I immediately (in shame) went to O'Reilly's 'HTML & XHTML  
- The Definitive Guide' to refresh my memory about the cite element  
and discovered that it appears to not be listed in the index at all.  
Attribute: yes, element: no. Weird.


Thanks again, and to everyone else who responded.

--
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[XStandard]

Hi Nikita,

> Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
> XHTML 1.1-formatted code
Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template written for a 
different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot:

http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com




 Original Message 
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> HTH wrote:
>>  >...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>>
>>> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>>  >application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>>  >you're generating two copies of all of your content
>>  Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate one 
>> copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of HTML 
>> as you like.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
> what do you mean then by "serve it as any version of HTML"? Are you
> talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
> serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?
> 
> 
>>  HTH wrote:
>>  > Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
>>  > get done correctly
>>  At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
>>  http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/
> 
> My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
> result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
> indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.
> 
> The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
> preference indicators ("q=..."). It's valid for a client to indicate
> that it accept both text/html and  application/xhtml+xml but prefers
> the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
> correctly.
> 
> It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
> it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
> But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
> getting it right most of the time.
> 
> There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
> on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
> involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
> standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.
> 
> Cheers
> 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Definition lists for testimonials

[Mike at Green-Beast.com]

Hi Rick,

Don't forget the cite element too. If a source isn't online you wouldn't use 
the cite attribute, but the element will still help with proper attribution. 
You can also link the element to allow the appropriate access to all.


Testimonials

With full linkage.

http://source.com";>
This is the quoted text --- http://source.com";>Who said 
it



With no linkage.


This is the quoted text --- Who said it


Personally, I wouldn't use a list at all -- any kind of list. In the name of 
semantics, web standards, accessibility, usability, and even presentational 
flexibility, the minimum markup shown above is really all you need, without 
any added complexity.


Respectfully,
Mike Cherim
http://green-beast.com




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%

[Rick Lecoat]

On 13 May 2008, at 11:39, jay wrote:

If you make the height:100% then it is 100% of the parent - since  
your flash file does not stretch to the that height the background  
shows which you have declared as white:
var so = new SWFObject("main.swf", "main", "100%", "100%", "8",  
"#ff"); <--


You need to either make the background black or set the height of  
#flashcontent to the height of the flash content.


On 13 May 2008, at 17:49, Laert Jansen wrote:

the problem isn´t the color of that areais that that area  
shouldn´t exist..I left it white on purpose just to show the  
area apart from the rest...



Leart;

What Jay was saying (I think) is that your SWFObject setup is coded to  
go full screen. Your  flash file (778 x 560 px) will scale to fit but  
only with it's original height:width ratio. So unless your browser  
viewport is precisely the same ratio of heigh to width as the flash  
file, you will get 'dead space' either top and bottom or on each side.  
Like if you watch a widescreen film on a traditional-size (4:3) TV,  
you get black bands top and bottom.


--
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Definition lists for testimonials

[Rick Lecoat]

On 13 May 2008, at 17:56, Joseph Ortenzi wrote:


how about using the  blockquote  "cite" attribute?

http://brainstormsandraves.com/articles/semantics/structure/

They mention using cite for a url (or email link) and title for the  
details.


seems to be compliant to me...


Hi Joseph;

Thanks for your reply. Maybe I'm mis-reading your post but it sounds  
as if you are suggesting that I use cite and title to replace the  
p.clientName and p.clientCompany tags. The problem with that, as I see  
it, is that the cite attribute is supposed to point to an online  
source URL, and only one or two of these testimonials have a relevant  
URL to link to. Secondly, even if the title attribute is appropriate  
for the client's name and company, then by embedding that information  
in the title attribute it is effectively hidden apart from on mouse- 
over -- not much use to keyboard using visitors.


I think that if I'm reading a testimonial I expect to see the  
originator's name and credentials clearly at the bottom, rather than  
hidden inside the code waiting for a mouse over.


On the other hand, if I misinterpreted your post and you were  
suggesting using the attributes *in addition* to the structure that I  
already had, then I agree completely, with the caveat that some of the  
blockquotes would have to have (null) cite attributes. Bear in mind  
that the markup I jotted down was a highly simplified version of the  
actual code.


Lastly, when you said "seems to be compliant to me" were you referring  
to the brainstormsandraves example you gave me, or where you referring  
to my markup? And if so, which version (ie. with the ul or without)?


Thanks again;
--
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Definition lists for testimonials

[Joseph Ortenzi]

how about using the  blockquote  "cite" attribute?

http://brainstormsandraves.com/articles/semantics/structure/

They mention using cite for a url (or email link) and title for the  
details.


seems to be compliant to me...




On May 13, 2008, at 16:31, Rick Lecoat wrote:


On 5 May 2008, at 19:04, Thierry Koblentz wrote:


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
] On

Behalf Of Rick Lecoat
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 8:26 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Definition lists for testimonials

Hi, I need to mark up a list of client testimonials. At first I was
going to do it with a UL but then I thought about the multi-part
nature of each 'item' (Client's quote, client's name, client's
company) and figured that a definition list might be a better  
option.

My only reservation about that is the fact that by using the
established structure:


 client's quote 
 client's name 
 client's company 



I think you're missing an important element: blockquote
but then it won't be allowed in a DT


Hi, just returning to this issue. Thierry, I had actually com to the  
same blockquote conclusion, and my solution last week to a list of  
testimonials was this:


div#testimonials
  ul
 li
blockquote
   p
   p.clientName
   p.clientCompany
/blockquote
 /li
 li
blockquote
   p
   p.clientName
   p.clientCompany
/blockquote
 /li
  /ul
/div

(that's simplified, obviously).

I'm going back over my markup to see if I can streamline it, and I'm  
wondering if the ul/li structure is needed. On the one hand it *is*  
semantically a list -- it's a list of testimonials after all. On the  
other hand a series of blockquotes wrapped in a div is much neater  
and less busy.


My question to the panel is: do you think that the unordered list  
markup is required semantically?


Cheers;
--
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



==
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%

[Laert Jansen]

the problem isn´t the color of that areais that that area shouldn´t
exist..I left it white on purpose just to show the area apart from
the rest...

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Andrew Maben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> On May 12, 2008, at 9:58 PM, Laert Jansen wrote:
>
> I can´t find out why that white area is showing on the top
>
>
> Well, I'm pretty out of touch with Flash, but looking at your page source
> I was struck by:
>
> var so = new SWFObject("main.swf", "main", "100%", "100%", "8",
> "#ff");
>
> Could that #ff have anything to do with it?
>
> Andrew
>
> http://www.andrewmaben.net
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> *"In a well designed user interface, the user should not
> need instructions."*
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>



-- 
Laert Jansen
www.laertjansen.com


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Definition lists for testimonials

[Rick Lecoat]

On 5 May 2008, at 19:04, Thierry Koblentz wrote:


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On

Behalf Of Rick Lecoat
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 8:26 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Definition lists for testimonials

Hi, I need to mark up a list of client testimonials. At first I was
going to do it with a UL but then I thought about the multi-part
nature of each 'item' (Client's quote, client's name, client's
company) and figured that a definition list might be a better option.
My only reservation about that is the fact that by using the
established structure:


 client's quote 
 client's name 
 client's company 



I think you're missing an important element: blockquote
but then it won't be allowed in a DT


Hi, just returning to this issue. Thierry, I had actually com to the  
same blockquote conclusion, and my solution last week to a list of  
testimonials was this:


div#testimonials
   ul
  li
 blockquote
p
p.clientName
p.clientCompany
 /blockquote
  /li
  li
 blockquote
p
p.clientName
p.clientCompany
 /blockquote
  /li
   /ul
/div

(that's simplified, obviously).

I'm going back over my markup to see if I can streamline it, and I'm  
wondering if the ul/li structure is needed. On the one hand it *is*  
semantically a list -- it's a list of testimonials after all. On the  
other hand a series of blockquotes wrapped in a div is much neater and  
less busy.


My question to the panel is: do you think that the unordered list  
markup is required semantically?


Cheers;
--
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] help with menu positioning

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

tee wrote:
My brain isn't working. I thought I  have the answer but it's not 
working :-(


http://lotusseedsdesign.com/menu.html


Missing base-position...

#menu li a {background-position: left top;}

Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] a list apart expired

[Andrew Boyd]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Joseph Ortenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Not from here it hasn't
>
>
> whois results:
>
> Domain Name: ALISTAPART.COM
> Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
> Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
> Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
> Name Server: NS1.PENDINGRENEWALDELETION.COM
>
>
Karma... one word, just... karma.

Cheers, Andrew

-- 
---
Andrew Boyd
http://onblogging.com.au


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[Nikita The Spider The Spider]

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HTH wrote:
>  >...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>
> >text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>  >application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>  >you're generating two copies of all of your content
>  Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate one 
> copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of HTML 
> as you like.

I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
what do you mean then by "serve it as any version of HTML"? Are you
talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?


>  HTH wrote:
>  > Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
>  > get done correctly
>  At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
>  http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/

My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.

The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
preference indicators ("q=..."). It's valid for a client to indicate
that it accept both text/html and  application/xhtml+xml but prefers
the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
correctly.

It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
getting it right most of the time.

There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.

Cheers

-- 
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] a list apart expired

[Joseph Ortenzi]

Not from here it hasn't


whois results:

Domain Name: ALISTAPART.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: NS1.PENDINGRENEWALDELETION.COM
Name Server: NS2.PENDINGRENEWALDELETION.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 13-may-2008
Creation Date: 07-may-1998
Expiration Date: 06-may-2009


On May 13, 2008, at 11:55, Francisco Antunes wrote:


Can someone who know Zeldman let him know that the domain is expired:
http://www.alistapart.com/

Cheers,

Francisco.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



==
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] a list apart expired

[Mark Harris]

Matthew Pennell wrote:

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Francisco Antunes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


Can someone who know Zeldman let him know that the domain is expired:
http://www.alistapart.com/



He's asleep at the moment. :)

Do Happy Cog 'run' Magnolia as well? That lapsed too, I seem to remember.

We should have seen this coming. After the IE8 fiasco, itobvious that 
the big Z is hanging up his standardista boots and running off to be a 
pig farmer


(That was a joke, for the humour-impaired)

mark
<>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] help with menu positioning

[tee]

My brain isn't working. I thought I  have the answer but it's not  
working :-(


http://lotusseedsdesign.com/menu.html

start from the second menu, the hover goes off , but actually the  
position for the hover state is correct. I do not understand why the  
link's position-x got  it wrong starts from #m2 - I have my math  
carefully calculated.



Here is the code:
#menu {width:920px;}
#menu ul {margin: 0;padding: 0;}
#menu ul li {float:left;margin-top: 8px;text-align: left;margin-left:  
0;}

#menu li a:hover {background-position: left 39px;}


#m1, #m2, #m3, #m4, #m5, #m6, #m7, #m8 {	height: 31px;background- 
repeat: no-repeat;display:block;border-right: 1px solid #fff;

text-indent: -3000px;}

#m1 {width: 65px; background: url(../images/menu/m1.png);}
#m2 {width: 73px; background: url(../images/menu/m2.png) 65px 0;}
#m3 {width: 163px; background: url(../images/menu/m3.png) 138px 0;}
#m4 {width: 113px; background: url(../images/menu/m4.png) 301px 0;}
#m5 {width: 119px; background: url(../images/menu/m5.png) 414px 0;}
#m6 {width: 109px; background: url(../images/menu/m6.png) 533px 0;}
#m7 {width: 144px; background: url(../images/menu/m7.png) 642px 0;}
#m8 {width: 78px; background: url(../images/menu/m8.png) 786px 0;}

Any pointer is greatly appreciated.

tee




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] a list apart expired

[Matthew Pennell]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Francisco Antunes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Can someone who know Zeldman let him know that the domain is expired:
> http://www.alistapart.com/
>

He's asleep at the moment. :)

Do Happy Cog 'run' Magnolia as well? That lapsed too, I seem to remember.

-- 

- Matthew


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] a list apart expired

[Francisco Antunes]

Can someone who know Zeldman let him know that the domain is expired:
http://www.alistapart.com/

Cheers,

Francisco.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%

[jay]

>From: "Laert Jansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 22:58:03 -0300
>Subject: Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%
>
>I´ve already set the height to 100%. The flash file is 778 x 560 px
>I can´t find out why that white area is showing on the top.

If you make the height:100% then it is 100% of the parent - since your 
flash file does not stretch to the that height the background shows 
which you have declared as white:
var so = new SWFObject("main.swf", "main", "100%", "100%", "8", 
"#ff"); <--


You need to either make the background black or set the height of 
#flashcontent to the height of the flash content.


j





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%

[Joseph Ortenzi]

nonsense!

You needn't use JS for this as it can be done without JS.

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/

Joe

On May 13, 2008, at 08:55, Essential eBiz Solutions Ltd wrote:


Hi Laert,
Try this



   You need to upgrade your Flash Player
   This is replaced by the Flash content.
   Place your alternate content here and users without  
the Flash plugin or with
   Javascript turned off will see this. Content here  
allows you to leave out noscript
   tags. Include a link to bypass the detection if you wish.




   //    var so = new SWFObject("main.swf", "main", "100%",  
"100%", "8", "#ff");
   so.addVariable("flashVarText", "this is passed in via  
FlashVars for example only");
   so.addParam("scale", "scale");
   so.addParam("quality", "high");
   so.addParam("wmode", "transparent");
   so.write("flashcontent");

   // ]]>



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Laert Jansen

Sent: 13 May 2008 02:58
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%

I´ve already set the height to 100%. The flash file is 778 x 560 px
I can´t find out why that white area is showing on the top.

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Michael Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:


Hi Laert,

I suggest you make it higher in order to fit 1024 768 screen in  
order to
eliminate the gap... im not a flash expert but I have published many  
sites

that are full size...

im using this, might make a difference

html, body {
   height: 100%;
   font-family:verdana;
}

michael


> :) thanks
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 2:09 PM, James Jeffery <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I had a quick peek but im having problems with this browser at  
college

>> so
>> i can't help until i get home
>>
>> Nice site btw.
>>
>> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Laert Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>

>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hey, thanks a lot. Here´s what I´m working on
>> > http://www.laertjansen.com/zecafreitas/
>> >
>> > Would you mind to take a look? :) I have a problem. The flash  
is the
>> > black portion only and it should be at the top...I mean, there  
should

>> not
>> > exist that white area.any ideia of what am I doing wrong?
>> >
>> > thanks a lot
>> >
>> > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM, James Jeffery <
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > SWFObject is currently the best way to go about embedding  
flash.

>> > >
>> > > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Michael Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>

>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi Laert,
>> > > >
>> > > > have a look at www.staff-jeans.com where I have a full  
flash site

>> > > > wit ha
>> > > > full flash independent on the screen size...
>> > > >
>> > > > Michael
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hello everyone.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > well, I´d like to know what´s the right way to embed a  
flash

>> file
>> > > > into the
>> > > > > html without tables. The flash file is 100% width and  
height.

>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks a lot
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Laert
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Laert Jansen
>> > > > > www.laertjansen.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >  
***

>> > > > > List Guidelines:
>> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> > > > > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>> > > > > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > > >
>> > > >  
***

>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >  
***

>> > > > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> > > > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/ 
unsubscribe.cfm

>> > > > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >  
***

>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >  
***

>> > > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> > > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>> > > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >  
***

>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Laert Jansen
>> > www.laertjansen.com
>> >
>> >  
***

>> > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>> > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >  
***

>> >
>>
>>
>> ***
>> List Guidelines: http://w

Re: [WSG] background-position-x (and y)?

[tee]

Sorry, please ignore me. My brain isn't working after a long and  
tiring day:-(


The answer is right in front of me and I couldn't see it until I wrote  
it out asking for help.

#menu a:hover {background-position: left bottom;}

tee
On May 13, 2008, at 1:02 AM, tee wrote:

I have a menu that has 9 buttons with 9 different widths, first I  
tried to use one image only with sliding door method, and declare  
width and background position in each unique ID like so


#menu {width: 900px}
#menu li a {background: url(image.png) no-repeat;height 26px}

#menu li a:hover {background: url(image.png) no-repeat;}
#m1 {widht: 85px; background-position: 0 center}
#m2 {widht: 95px; background-position:85px center}

The image.png is some 920px wide, I have difficulty to get the hover  
shows up on each menu button with exactly position with the above  
code, instead, it shows the entire image in hover, so I break the  
menu to m1.png, m2.png and so on. Because the background position y  
shares the same value, I thought I will save myself trouble for  
writing 9 lines of code, and realize there is no 'background- 
position-x'

Hereis my code for each button:

#m1 {width: 65px;background: url(../images/home.png) 0 top;}
#m2 {width: 73px;background: url(../images/about.png) 65px top;}
#m3 {width: 163px;background: url(../images/service_plan.png) 140px   
top;}
#m4 {width: 113px;background: url(../images/web_hosting.png) 301px   
top;}
#m5 {width: 119px;background: url(../images/service_area.png) 414px   
top;}
#m6 {width: 109px;background: url(../images/ny_account.png) 533px  
top;}
#m7 {width: 144px;background: url(../images/techincal_support.png)  
642px top;}

#m8 {width: 78px;background: url(../images/contact.png) 786px top;}


As you can see,each button has different width with differnt  
position x but shares the same y.


I want to have something like
#menu li a:hover {background-position-y: top}

But it won't work because the property is not valid.

Any tips?

thanks!

tee





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] background-position-x (and y)?

[tee]

I have a menu that has 9 buttons with 9 different widths, first I  
tried to use one image only with sliding door method, and declare  
width and background position in each unique ID like so


#menu {width: 900px}
#menu li a {background: url(image.png) no-repeat;height 26px}

#menu li a:hover {background: url(image.png) no-repeat;}
#m1 {widht: 85px; background-position: 0 center}
#m2 {widht: 95px; background-position:85px center}

The image.png is some 920px wide, I have difficulty to get the hover  
shows up on each menu button with exactly position with the above  
code, instead, it shows the entire image in hover, so I break the menu  
to m1.png, m2.png and so on. Because the background position y shares  
the same value, I thought I will save myself trouble for writing 9  
lines of code, and realize there is no 'background-position-x'

Hereis my code for each button:

#m1 {width: 65px;background: url(../images/home.png) 0 top;}
#m2 {width: 73px;background: url(../images/about.png) 65px top;}
#m3 {width: 163px;background: url(../images/service_plan.png) 140px   
top;}
#m4 {width: 113px;background: url(../images/web_hosting.png) 301px   
top;}
#m5 {width: 119px;background: url(../images/service_area.png) 414px   
top;}

#m6 {width: 109px;background: url(../images/ny_account.png) 533px top;}
#m7 {width: 144px;background: url(../images/techincal_support.png)  
642px top;}

#m8 {width: 78px;background: url(../images/contact.png) 786px top;}


As you can see,each button has different width with differnt position  
x but shares the same y.


I want to have something like
#menu li a:hover {background-position-y: top}

But it won't work because the property is not valid.

Any tips?

thanks!

tee






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%

[Essential eBiz Solutions Ltd]

Hi Laert,

Try this

 


 
   You need to upgrade your Flash Player
   This is replaced by the Flash content. 
   Place your alternate content here and users without the Flash
plugin or with 
   Javascript turned off will see this. Content here allows you
to leave out noscript 
   tags. Include a link to bypass the detection if you wish.



   // 


 

 

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Laert Jansen
Sent: 13 May 2008 02:58
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Embed a flash file 100%

 

I´ve already set the height to 100%. The flash file is 778 x 560 px 
I can´t find out why that white area is showing on the top.



On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Michael Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Hi Laert,

I suggest you make it higher in order to fit 1024 768 screen in order to
eliminate the gap... im not a flash expert but I have published many sites
that are full size...

im using this, might make a difference

html, body {
   height: 100%;
   font-family:verdana;
}

michael



> :) thanks
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 2:09 PM, James Jeffery <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I had a quick peek but im having problems with this browser at college
>> so
>> i can't help until i get home
>>
>> Nice site btw.
>>
>> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Laert Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hey, thanks a lot. Here´s what I´m working on
>> > http://www.laertjansen.com/zecafreitas/
>> >
>> > Would you mind to take a look? :) I have a problem. The flash is the
>> > black portion only and it should be at the top...I mean, there should
>> not
>> > exist that white area.any ideia of what am I doing wrong?
>> >
>> > thanks a lot
>> >
>> > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM, James Jeffery <
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > SWFObject is currently the best way to go about embedding flash.
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Michael Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi Laert,
>> > > >
>> > > > have a look at www.staff-jeans.com where I have a full flash site
>> > > > wit ha
>> > > > full flash independent on the screen size...
>> > > >
>> > > > Michael
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hello everyone.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > well, I´d like to know what´s the right way to embed a flash
>> file
>> > > > into the
>> > > > > html without tables. The flash file is 100% width and height.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks a lot
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Laert
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Laert Jansen
>> > > > > www.laertjansen.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > ***
>> > > > > List Guidelines:
>> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> > > > > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>> > > > > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > > >
>> > > > ***
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ***
>> > > > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> > > > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>> > > > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > > ***
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > ***
>> > > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> > > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>> > > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > ***
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Laert Jansen
>> > www.laertjansen.com
>> >
>> > ***
>> > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>> > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > ***
>> >
>>
>>
>> ***
>> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ***
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Laert Jansen
> www.laertjansen.com
>
>
>