Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

[Michael MD]

Brett Patterson wrote:

1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit!
2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!!

--and--

3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I 
can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive!

4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam.


Very expressive. Though you might want to adjust your meds a bit :-)

And you might want to google, say, "Australia firewall censorship"...




its true ...
http://nocleanfeed.com/   ("clean feed" is a misnomer - it's not optional)
http://www.efa.org.au/2008/11/15/filtering-pilot-and-acma-blacklist-not-just-illegal-material/
http://www.efa.org.au/2008/10/26/can-labor-implement-clean-feed-without-legislation/

It is similar to what Alston wanted to do a couple of years ago ... but 
Coonan dropped it when she replaced Alston .
(favouring a more sensible approach of people installing optional filtering 
software on their own PCs) .


Now it looks like Conroy, like Alston, is clueless and too heavily 
influenced by fanatical religious extremists.



It is sad to see Australia going down the route towards totalitarianism.

Why is the list of banned sites kept secret?

What is to stop something like this from being misused in future by corrupt 
officials to ban sites they don't agree with (that are otherwise harmless) 
or taking bribes to "ban the competition"?
... by the time someone goes though the red tape to get their site taken off 
the list the damage may have been done.


...also...

If there is any kind of "AI" or spam-filter-like heuristics involved what is 
there to prevent false positives?


...and...

like other attempts at censorship elsewhere in the world it is not kiddy 
porn sites or terrorists that suffer

(as they inevitably find ways around it) ..
It is the average person who ends up putting up with slower speeds and 
higher costs.


god knows what could happen in other countries if they see that Australia 
is able to get such a thing in place.


we will become a laughing stock... along with China, North Korea, Iran, etc 
(and all those other totalitarian governments and banana republics)



Isn't this all a storm in a tea cup? Last time I checked, Australia
was still a democracy, and while *somebody* must have voted for
Conroy, we (Australians) still get a say.


I don't think many people voted about this issue directly  they mostly 
just wanted Howard out.
That doesn't mean everyone who voted Labor agrees with everything Labor 
does.








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

RE: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

[Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]]

I was originally involved in the testing of the Net Alert server based filters 
from a User perspective. Of course a lot of the information is confidential, 
but it shouldn't harm to point you to some of the publicly available 
information:

http://www.netalert.gov.au/advice/publications/reports/a_study_on_server_based_internet_filters.html
 

The section "User Experience" may be of particular interest.

I should also add that the tests I was involved in were done 1 or 2 years back 
in a specifically prepared environment and I am not aware which changes, if 
any, have been made to the systems. It seems now they are testing it all in 
reality with ISPs. 

Andreas.



> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Anthony Ziebell
> Sent: Thursday, 27 November 2008 4:51 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
> 
> As I understand it, tests have already been completed in TAS? I'm not
> sure how accurate this is, though... as I have not seen any results.
> 
> Andrew Barnett wrote:
> 
>   This is currently at the stage of the government looking for
>   expressions of interest from ISP's to set this up for a trial.
> 
>   I only hope that this trial shows that this proposal is the crock
> of
>   sh*t that everyone says it is.
> 
>   The previous Liberal government's proposal is a much more viable,
> and
>   better suited proposal. They were providing web monitoring
> software to
>   be run on each PC (at the request of the owner) rather than
> scanning
>   the incoming data in real-time.
> 
> 
>   Andrew
> 
> 
> 
>   2008/11/27 Hassan Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> 
> 
>   Brett Patterson wrote:
> 
> 
>   1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit!
>   2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!!
> 
>   --and--
> 
>   3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up,
> stupid, and this I
>   can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or
> alive!
>   4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and
> possibly spam.
> 
> 
>   Very expressive. Though you might want to adjust your meds
> a bit :-)
> 
>   And you might want to google, say, "Australia firewall
> censorship"...
> 
>   FWIW,
>   --
>   Hassan Schroeder -
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   ===
> http://webtuitive.com
> 
>dream.  code.
> 
> 
> 
>   *
> **
>   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]
>   *
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3644 (20081126) __
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
> 
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
 

__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 3644 (20081126) __

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 



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

Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

[Andrew Barnett]

Nedlud,

My understanding is that as long as the majority of elected members of
parliament support this proposition, it will be able to pass through,
even though it is technically unfeasible.

The Liberals and the Greens are very opposed to this legislation, and
it cannot be passed in the Senate without the support of either the
Liberals or the Greens.

I am hoping that the live testing/trial that will be carried out early
next year just shows that this is technically unfeasible. It is quite
stupid to be filtering the internet for everyone in Australia, when it
is much simpler to be done on each individual PC through the use of
software as the previous Liberal government proposed.

This is a step backwards in my opinion, and it has finally started to
hit the wider community, however they are pushing the child porn case,
and as such, anyone seen opposing this legislation, is in fact
supporting child porn being freely available. In my day to day surfing
of the net, I have never once come across child pornography, you only
seem to be able to find it if you go searching for it in my opinion.
So this legislation to enforce filtering is overkill.


Andrew



2008/11/27 nedlud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (Hoping this thread isn't off topic)
>
> Isn't this all a storm in a tea cup? Last time I checked, Australia
> was still a democracy, and while *somebody* must have voted for
> Conroy, we (Australians) still get a say.
>
> But aren't there some serious practical barriers to this? Would ISP's
> seriously get behind this? Is it even technically feasible to do
> properly? And will the internet surfing population of Australia get
> behind it? We have all kinds of talk in the press about getting a high
> speed network, while at the same time there is talk of this filtering
> guff *slowing* the our net by up to 80%.
>
> What I'm saying is: I don't know how much I care about this issue.
> Yes, it's shocking that anyone would try this in Australia, but aren't
> it's chances of getting off the ground about zero?
>
> Nedlud.
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Anthony Ziebell
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Oh, it's certainly not spam. It's been all over news, whirlpool, everywhere.
>>
>> Yes, it's definitely real. I feel ashamed of being Australian right there.
>>
>> --
>> Blake Haswell
>> http://www.blakehaswell.com/ | http://blakehaswell.wordpress.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]
***

Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

[Anthony Ziebell]

As I understand it, tests have already been
completed in TAS? I'm not sure how accurate this is, though... as I
have not seen any results.

Andrew Barnett wrote:

  This is currently at the stage of the government looking for
expressions of interest from ISP's to set this up for a trial.

I only hope that this trial shows that this proposal is the crock of
sh*t that everyone says it is.

The previous Liberal government's proposal is a much more viable, and
better suited proposal. They were providing web monitoring software to
be run on each PC (at the request of the owner) rather than scanning
the incoming data in real-time.


Andrew



2008/11/27 Hassan Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
  
  
Brett Patterson wrote:


  1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit!
2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!!

--and--

3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I
can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive!
4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam.
  

Very expressive. Though you might want to adjust your meds a bit :-)

And you might want to google, say, "Australia firewall censorship"...

FWIW,
--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com

 dream.  code.


***
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.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

[Andrew Barnett]

This is currently at the stage of the government looking for
expressions of interest from ISP's to set this up for a trial.

I only hope that this trial shows that this proposal is the crock of
sh*t that everyone says it is.

The previous Liberal government's proposal is a much more viable, and
better suited proposal. They were providing web monitoring software to
be run on each PC (at the request of the owner) rather than scanning
the incoming data in real-time.


Andrew



2008/11/27 Hassan Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Brett Patterson wrote:
>>
>> 1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit!
>> 2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!!
>>
>> --and--
>>
>> 3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I
>> can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive!
>> 4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam.
>
> Very expressive. Though you might want to adjust your meds a bit :-)
>
> And you might want to google, say, "Australia firewall censorship"...
>
> FWIW,
> --
> Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com
>
>  dream.  code.
>
>
> ***
> 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] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

[nedlud]

(Hoping this thread isn't off topic)

Isn't this all a storm in a tea cup? Last time I checked, Australia
was still a democracy, and while *somebody* must have voted for
Conroy, we (Australians) still get a say.

But aren't there some serious practical barriers to this? Would ISP's
seriously get behind this? Is it even technically feasible to do
properly? And will the internet surfing population of Australia get
behind it? We have all kinds of talk in the press about getting a high
speed network, while at the same time there is talk of this filtering
guff *slowing* the our net by up to 80%.

What I'm saying is: I don't know how much I care about this issue.
Yes, it's shocking that anyone would try this in Australia, but aren't
it's chances of getting off the ground about zero?

Nedlud.

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Anthony Ziebell
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Oh, it's certainly not spam. It's been all over news, whirlpool, everywhere.
>
> Yes, it's definitely real. I feel ashamed of being Australian right there.
>
> --
> Blake Haswell
> http://www.blakehaswell.com/ | http://blakehaswell.wordpress.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]
***

Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

[Dennis Suitters]

Yes, real, definitely. But think about it, the government would already, 
and in some part already do filter information. If they went to the 
extremes outlined though, don't you think that generally the public (not 
just the web development community) would put up such a stink about it, 
the government would be forced into taking several steps back.


Unfortunately though, even though the government is supposed to work in 
the best interests of it's people, they don't in the long run.




Blake wrote:

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Anthony Ziebell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

Oh, it's certainly not spam. It's been all over news, whirlpool, everywhere.



Yes, it's definitely real. I feel ashamed of being Australian right there.

--
Blake Haswell
http://www.blakehaswell.com/ | http://blakehaswell.wordpress.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]
***

Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

[Luke Hoggett]

Hi Brett,

Where have you been, this is a very important very current issue facing 
anyone involved in web based industries.


ciao
L

Brett Patterson wrote:

1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit!
2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!!

--and--

3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this 
I can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive!

4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM, IceKat <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:


Hi,

Usually I'm suspicious of this stuff but I happen to know that Get
Up is legit and thought the Aussie members of this list might like
to know about this.

IceKat.


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

***
Thought you might be interested
 
Love Mum
 
 
- Original Message -

*From:* GetUp 
*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:17 PM
*Subject:* The Great Firewall of Australia


Dear Helen,

Imagine a government proposing an internet censorship system that
went further than any other democracy - one that made the internet
up to 87% slower, more expensive, accidentally blocked up to one
in 12 legitimate sites, and missed the vast majority of
inappropriate content.

This is not China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - this is the vision of
Senator Stephen Conroy for Australia. *Testing has already begun.*
The community must now move to stop this plan. *Click here to save
the net:*

*www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet*


The system that Senator Conroy wants is *a mandatory filter of all
internet traffic*, with the government of the day able to add any
unwanted site to a secret blacklist. Already, the wrangling has
begun for the inclusion of material relating to anorexia,
euthanasia and gambling. It isn't difficult to see *the scheme is
open to abuse*.

Even when it comes to preventing child p-rnography, the filter
will not prevent peer-to-peer sharing and is very simple to
sidestep. *The protection of our children is vitally important* -
that's why we can't afford to waste funds on this deeply flawed
system. We should be concentrating on solutions that are more
effective and won't undermine our digital economy or our
democratic freedoms.

This must rank as one of the most ill-thought decisions of the
Rudd Government's first year in power. We need to act now to *tell
big brother the mandatory internet filter is incompatible with the
principles of a modern democracy and modern economy*:

*www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet*


Our government should be doing all in its power to take Australia
into the 21st century economy, and to protect our children. *This
proposed internet censorship does neither.* Take action to save
the net today.

Thanks for being a part of the solution,
The GetUp team

PS - The proposed scheme will pass all internet traffic through a
government filter - it's like asking Australia Post to filter
every letter sent in Australia. *Click here to save the net.*


__

GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning
group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their
say on important national issues. We receive no political party or
government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely
supported by voluntary donations. If you'd like to contribute to
*help fund GetUp's work*, please *donate now!
* If you have
trouble with any links in this email, please go directly to
www.getup.org.au . To
unsubscribe from GetUp, please click here
.

Authorised by Simon Sheikh, Level 2, 294 Pitt St, Sydney NSW
2000tracking



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release Date:
11/25/2008 7:53 PM




--
Brett P.

***
List Guideli

Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

[Casey Farrell]

Haha, it's not spam, unfortunately the only entity that fits your rather
heated descriptive words on this topic is the Government of Australia,
who are pushing for this filter.

This *is* already happening in Australia and the Government have
seriously said they would like it in place. I know, hard to believe. And
that's why anyone who values the freedom of the Internet should sign the
petition - god knows what could happen in other countries if they see
that Australia is able to get such a thing in place.

Regards,
Casey.


On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 22:59 -0600, Brett Patterson wrote:

> 1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit!
> 
> 2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!!
> 
> 
> --and--
> 
> 
> 3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this
> I can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive!
> 4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM, IceKat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Usually I'm suspicious of this stuff but I happen to know that
> Get Up is legit and thought the Aussie members of this list
> might like to know about this.
> 
> IceKat.
> 
> 
> ***
> List Guidelines:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
> 
> Thought you might be interested
>  
> Love Mum
>  
>  
> - Original Message - 
> 
> From: GetUp 
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:17 PM
> Subject: The Great Firewall of Australia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Helen,
> 
> Imagine a government proposing an internet censorship system
> that went further than any other democracy - one that made the
> internet up to 87% slower, more expensive, accidentally
> blocked up to one in 12 legitimate sites, and missed the vast
> majority of inappropriate content.
> 
> This is not China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - this is the vision
> of Senator Stephen Conroy for Australia. Testing has already
> begun. The community must now move to stop this plan. Click
> here to save the net:
> 
> www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet
> 
> The system that Senator Conroy wants is a mandatory filter of
> all internet traffic, with the government of the day able to
> add any unwanted site to a secret blacklist. Already, the
> wrangling has begun for the inclusion of material relating to
> anorexia, euthanasia and gambling. It isn't difficult to see
> the scheme is open to abuse. 
> 
> Even when it comes to preventing child p-rnography, the filter
> will not prevent peer-to-peer sharing and is very simple to
> sidestep. The protection of our children is vitally important
> - that's why we can't afford to waste funds on this deeply
> flawed system. We should be concentrating on solutions that
> are more effective and won't undermine our digital economy or
> our democratic freedoms.
> 
> This must rank as one of the most ill-thought decisions of the
> Rudd Government's first year in power. We need to act now to
> tell big brother the mandatory internet filter is incompatible
> with the principles of a modern democracy and modern economy:
> 
> www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet
> 
> Our government should be doing all in its power to take
> Australia into the 21st century economy, and to protect our
> children. This proposed internet censorship does neither. Take
> action to save the net today.
> 
> Thanks for being a part of the solution,
> The GetUp team 
> 
> PS - The proposed scheme will pass all internet traffic
> through a government filter - it's like asking Australia Post
> to filter every letter sent in Australia. Click here to save
> the net. 
> 
> __
> 
> GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning
> group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have
> their say on important national issues. We receive no
> political party or government funding, and every campaign we
> run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd
> like to contribute to help fund GetUp's work, please donate
> now! If you have trouble with any links in this

Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

[Hassan Schroeder]

Brett Patterson wrote:

1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit!
2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!!

--and--

3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I 
can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive!

4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam.


Very expressive. Though you might want to adjust your meds a bit :-)

And you might want to google, say, "Australia firewall censorship"...

FWIW,
--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com

  dream.  code.


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

Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

[Blake]

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Anthony Ziebell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, it's certainly not spam. It's been all over news, whirlpool, everywhere.

Yes, it's definitely real. I feel ashamed of being Australian right there.

--
Blake Haswell
http://www.blakehaswell.com/ | http://blakehaswell.wordpress.com/


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

Re: [WSG] the Name attribute

[Brett Patterson]

Where could I find a good information site about the document.images.imageId
script line, please? And if you are trying to code using codes such as
http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=217502
Just an example. A quick search to find.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:52 PM, David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Brett Patterson wrote:
> > So I thought. But why, when using JavaScript can you not target the ID
> > of an element such as an image?
>
> You can.
>
> > You can target the name, but not the ID,
>
> Incorrect.
>
> > not without document.getElementById
>
> Why would you want to do it without document.getElementById?
>
> Even if you did, document.images.imageId works fine (at least in the
> quick test I performed).
>
>
> --
> David Dorward   
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


-- 
Brett P.


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

Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

[Anthony Ziebell]

Oh, it's certainly not spam. It's been all over
news, whirlpool, everywhere.

Brett Patterson wrote:
1)
That, I do believe is a crock of shit!
  2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!!
  
  
  --and--
  
  
  3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and
this I can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive!
  4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam.
  
  On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM, IceKat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
  Hi,

Usually I'm suspicious of this stuff but I happen to know that Get Up
is legit and thought the Aussie members of this list might like to know
about this.

IceKat.


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

Thought you might be interested
 
Love Mum
 
 
-
Original Message -
From:
GetUp 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:17 PM
Subject: The Great Firewall of Australia



 
Dear Helen,

Imagine a government proposing an internet censorship system that went
further than any other democracy - one that made the internet up to 87%
slower, more expensive, accidentally blocked up to one in 12 legitimate
sites, and missed the vast majority of inappropriate content.

This is not China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - this is the vision of Senator
Stephen Conroy for Australia. Testing has already begun.
The community must now move to stop this plan. Click here to
save the net:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet

The system that Senator Conroy wants is a mandatory filter of
all internet traffic, with the government of the day able to
add any unwanted site to a secret blacklist. Already, the wrangling has
begun for the inclusion of material relating to anorexia, euthanasia
and gambling. It isn't difficult to see the scheme is open to
abuse. 

Even when it comes to preventing child p-rnography, the filter will not
prevent peer-to-peer sharing and is very simple to sidestep. The
protection of our children is vitally important - that's why
we can't afford to waste funds on this deeply flawed system. We should
be concentrating on solutions that are more effective and won't
undermine our digital economy or our democratic freedoms.

This must rank as one of the most ill-thought decisions of the Rudd
Government's first year in power. We need to act now to tell
big brother the mandatory internet filter is incompatible with the
principles of a modern democracy and modern economy:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet

Our government should be doing all in its power to take Australia into
the 21st century economy, and to protect our children. This
proposed internet censorship does neither. Take action to save
the net today.

Thanks for being a part of the solution,
The GetUp team 

PS - The proposed scheme will pass all internet traffic through a
government filter - it's like asking Australia Post to filter every
letter sent in Australia. Click here to save the net. 

__

GetUp
is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use
new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important
national issues. We receive no political party or government funding,
and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations.
If you'd like to contribute to help fund GetUp's work, please donate
now! If you have trouble with any links in this email, please
go directly to www.getup.org.au.
To unsubscribe from GetUp, please click here.


Authorised
by Simon Sheikh, Level 2, 294 Pitt St, Sydney NSW 2000



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release Date:
11/25/2008 7:53 PM


  
  
  
  
  
-- 
Brett P.
  
  
***
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.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

[Brett Patterson]

1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit!2) If he does anything like that,
he will be dead!!!

--and--

3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I can
promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive!
4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM, IceKat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Usually I'm suspicious of this stuff but I happen to know that Get Up is
> legit and thought the Aussie members of this list might like to know about
> this.
>
> IceKat.
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>  Thought you might be interested
>
> Love Mum
>
>
> - Original Message - *From:* GetUp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:17 PM
> *Subject:* The Great Firewall of Australia
>
>  
> Dear Helen,
>
> Imagine a government proposing an internet censorship system that went
> further than any other democracy - one that made the internet up to 87%
> slower, more expensive, accidentally blocked up to one in 12 legitimate
> sites, and missed the vast majority of inappropriate content.
>
> This is not China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - this is the vision of Senator
> Stephen Conroy for Australia. *Testing has already begun.* The community
> must now move to stop this plan. *Click here to save the net:*
>
> *www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet*
>
> The system that Senator Conroy wants is *a mandatory filter of all
> internet traffic*, with the government of the day able to add any unwanted
> site to a secret blacklist. Already, the wrangling has begun for the
> inclusion of material relating to anorexia, euthanasia and gambling. It
> isn't difficult to see *the scheme is open to abuse*.
>
> Even when it comes to preventing child p-rnography, the filter will not
> prevent peer-to-peer sharing and is very simple to sidestep. *The
> protection of our children is vitally important* - that's why we can't
> afford to waste funds on this deeply flawed system. We should be
> concentrating on solutions that are more effective and won't undermine our
> digital economy or our democratic freedoms.
>
> This must rank as one of the most ill-thought decisions of the Rudd
> Government's first year in power. We need to act now to *tell big brother
> the mandatory internet filter is incompatible with the principles of a
> modern democracy and modern economy*:
>
> *www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet*
>
> Our government should be doing all in its power to take Australia into the
> 21st century economy, and to protect our children. *This proposed internet
> censorship does neither.* Take action to save the net today.
>
> Thanks for being a part of the solution,
> The GetUp team
>
> PS - The proposed scheme will pass all internet traffic through a
> government filter - it's like asking Australia Post to filter every letter
> sent in Australia. *Click here to save the 
> net.*
>
> __
>
> GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use
> new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important
> national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and
> every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd
> like to contribute to *help fund GetUp's work*, please *donate 
> now!
> * If you have trouble with any links in this email, please go directly to
> www.getup.org.au . To unsubscribe
> from GetUp, please click 
> here
> .
>
> Authorised by Simon Sheikh, Level 2, 294 Pitt St, Sydney NSW 2000[image:
> tracking]
>
> --
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release Date: 11/25/2008
> 7:53 PM
>
>
>


-- 
Brett P.


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

Re: [WSG] is there a way to force legend text shows in TWO lines?

[James Ellis]

Hi

If there is CSS related issue that doesn't seem to want play nice, no matter 
what you do, it's probably a rule being set by the browser in its user agent 
stylesheet.
In firefox's case, it's in /res/forms.css (for forms). 
Have  
a peek at that stylesheet and you'll see all the rules it applies by default 
to forms. If you can't override the rules in that CSS using your own (try 
!important) then start Firebug, bring up the rule in the Style tab. In the 
'Options >' menu on the right you'll see an item called "Show User Agent CSS" 
- check that and you'll see the rules applied by Firefox to the relevant 
element.
If the rule is now struck out, then it is being applied. In the case of 
legend, the relevant rule is:
white-space : nowrap;

So Ben's suggestion below will override it.

Opera also has it's basic styles available in easy to read format, just search 
for them in the opera install dir. Not sure about Safari (I assume they are in 
some readable format). For IE, I doubt it.. it's still guesswork. they seem to 
be in  a compiled format last time I looked but maybe that has changed.

If all that fails. Set your legend to display : none and stick an h3 or 
something inside the fieldset below the legend, works just as well without the 
gutache.

HTH
James

On Thursday 27 November 2008 13:49:19 Ben Lau wrote:
> try white-space:normal...?
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:43 PM, tee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >>
> >>
> >>  Yes, that is the first thing I did. No use.
> >
> > Here is a quick page I just did.
> >
> > http://lotusseedsdesign.com/csstest/legend.html
> >
> > tee




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

[WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

[IceKat]

Hi,

Usually I'm suspicious of this stuff but I happen to know that Get Up is 
legit and thought the Aussie members of this list might like to know 
about this.


IceKat.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***--- Begin Message ---
Thought you might be interested

Love Mum


- Original Message - 
From: GetUp 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:17 PM
Subject: The Great Firewall of Australia


 
Dear Helen,

Imagine a government proposing an internet censorship system that went further 
than any other democracy - one that made the internet up to 87% slower, more 
expensive, accidentally blocked up to one in 12 legitimate sites, and missed 
the vast majority of inappropriate content.

This is not China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - this is the vision of Senator Stephen 
Conroy for Australia. Testing has already begun. The community must now move to 
stop this plan. Click here to save the net:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet

The system that Senator Conroy wants is a mandatory filter of all internet 
traffic, with the government of the day able to add any unwanted site to a 
secret blacklist. Already, the wrangling has begun for the inclusion of 
material relating to anorexia, euthanasia and gambling. It isn't difficult to 
see the scheme is open to abuse. 

Even when it comes to preventing child p-rnography, the filter will not prevent 
peer-to-peer sharing and is very simple to sidestep. The protection of our 
children is vitally important - that's why we can't afford to waste funds on 
this deeply flawed system. We should be concentrating on solutions that are 
more effective and won't undermine our digital economy or our democratic 
freedoms.

This must rank as one of the most ill-thought decisions of the Rudd 
Government's first year in power. We need to act now to tell big brother the 
mandatory internet filter is incompatible with the principles of a modern 
democracy and modern economy:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet

Our government should be doing all in its power to take Australia into the 21st 
century economy, and to protect our children. This proposed internet censorship 
does neither. Take action to save the net today.

Thanks for being a part of the solution,
The GetUp team 

PS - The proposed scheme will pass all internet traffic through a government 
filter - it's like asking Australia Post to filter every letter sent in 
Australia. Click here to save the net. 


__

GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new 
technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national 
issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign 
we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd like to 
contribute to help fund GetUp's work, please donate now! If you have trouble 
with any links in this email, please go directly to www.getup.org.au. To 
unsubscribe from GetUp, please click here.


Authorised by Simon Sheikh, Level 2, 294 Pitt St, Sydney NSW 2000







No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release Date: 11/25/2008 
7:53 PM
--- End Message ---

Re: [WSG] is there a way to force legend text shows in TWO lines?

[Ben Lau]

try white-space:normal...?

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:43 PM, tee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On Nov 26, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Ben Buchanan wrote:
>
>
>> 2) I have a column that is 160px wide, but the text in legend is a bit
>> longer, I added a span class, declared a width, but in Firefox, the text
>> still refuse to run in two lines - the rest of the text simply get cut off
>> when the words reaches 160px threshold. I really don't want to add a ,
>> and it will be more ridiculous to use a p tag for the text so that I can
>> force it display exactly the way my client wanted, then use a negative
>> text-indent to hide the legend.
>> Did you set the span to display: block?
>>
>>
>>  Yes, that is the first thing I did. No use.
> Here is a quick page I just did.
>
> http://lotusseedsdesign.com/csstest/legend.html
>
> tee
>
>
>
> ***
> 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] is there a way to force legend text shows in TWO lines?

[tee]

On Nov 26, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Ben Buchanan wrote:



2) I have a column that is 160px wide, but the text in legend is a  
bit longer, I added a span class, declared a width, but in Firefox,  
the text still refuse to run in two lines - the rest of the text  
simply get cut off when the words reaches 160px threshold. I really  
don't want to add a , and it will be more ridiculous to use a  
p tag for the text so that I can force it display exactly the way my  
client wanted, then use a negative text-indent to hide the legend.

Did you set the span to display: block?



Yes, that is the first thing I did. No use.
Here is a quick page I just did.

http://lotusseedsdesign.com/csstest/legend.html

tee


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

Re: [WSG] is there a way to force legend text shows in TWO lines?

[Ben Buchanan]

> 2) I have a column that is 160px wide, but the text in legend is a bit
> longer, I added a span class, declared a width, but in Firefox, the text
> still refuse to run in two lines - the rest of the text simply get cut off
> when the words reaches 160px threshold. I really don't want to add a ,
> and it will be more ridiculous to use a p tag for the text so that I can
> force it display exactly the way my client wanted, then use a negative
> text-indent to hide the legend.

Did you set the span to display: block?

cheers,

Ben


-- 
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson


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

Re: [WSG] is there a way to force legend text shows in TWO lines?

[Seona Bellamy]

2008/11/27 tee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2) I have a column that is 160px wide, but the text in legend is a bit
> longer, I added a span class, declared a width, but in Firefox, the text
> still refuse to run in two lines - the rest of the text simply get cut off
> when the words reaches 160px threshold. I really don't want to add a ,
> and it will be more ridiculous to use a p tag for the text so that I can
> force it display exactly the way my client wanted, then use a negative
> text-indent to hide the legend.

I can't be 100% sure on this, since I haven't played around much with
it, but one thing sprang out at me. I didn't think you could declare a
width on an inline element like a span unless you also set its display
to block. Could that be the problem here? If adding display:block to
your span works, then it is indeed a case of Firefox doing the right
thing an dthe others not. ;)

Cheers,

Seona.


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

[WSG] is there a way to force legend text shows in TWO lines?

[tee]

My tolerance for legend attribute is running extremely thin and the  
irritation I have for it is greater than IE6.


Two questions:
1) Can anyone absolutely positively confirm that without legend a site  
will cause suffering to screen reader's user or cause a traumatic  
effect to accessibility?


2) I have a column that is 160px wide, but the text in legend is a bit  
longer, I added a span class, declared a width, but in Firefox, the  
text still refuse to run in two lines - the rest of the text simply  
get cut off when the words reaches 160px threshold. I really don't  
want to add a , and it will be more ridiculous to use a p tag  
for the text so that I can force it display exactly the way my client  
wanted, then use a negative text-indent to hide the legend.


What is wrong with Firefox, why it refuses to fix this bug with so  
many upgrades??? Or it's not a bug but other browsers got it wrong and  
Firefox being self-righteous of its rightness Do we have Firefox  
developer here


tee




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

Re: [WSG] the Name attribute

[David Dorward]

Brett Patterson wrote:
> So I thought. But why, when using JavaScript can you not target the ID
> of an element such as an image?

You can.

> You can target the name, but not the ID,

Incorrect.

> not without document.getElementById

Why would you want to do it without document.getElementById?

Even if you did, document.images.imageId works fine (at least in the
quick test I performed).


-- 
David Dorward   


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

Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

[David Dorward]

Brett Patterson wrote:
>>From what I have read so far, you are pretty much agreeing with me.

It depends on how you define "language".

> Hence, David, you said and I quote, "HTML 5 is "Everything you need to
> know to build a browser" with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL
> and HTTP in it.", therefore, HTML5 (not to be confused with xHTML or
> XHTML), is being phased out.

No. HTML5 is being phased in.

> It would have to be, especially considering
> the previous statement. If they are including some definition of HTML
> with XHTML, then they are trying to get HTML designers used to using the
> simplistical form of XHTML in XML syntax/serialisation/yada yada yada
> whatever, correct? 

No. They are recognising that some people want to use XML syntax and
catering to them.

> SQL is a database manipulation language is it not?

Yes.

> Like XML? 

Nothing like XML.

> So, all in all, HTML developers will move more into what the
> "purpose" of XHTML is, correct?

No.

> And it would have to unify the schism if
> it is to include all of the above stated, is that not right?

No. XHTML 2 is going to be a significantly different language.

-- 
David Dorward   


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

Re: [WSG] the Name attribute

[Brett Patterson]

So I thought. But why, when using JavaScript can you not target the ID of an
element such as an image? You can target the name, but not the ID, not
without document.getElementById-blah blah blah, so how can it duplicate
it? It seems then, that is does not.

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:32 PM, David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Brett Patterson wrote:
> > I don't why, but XHTML (I am using Strict 1.0 in the below examples),
> > has deprecated the use of the name attribute. That being said, my
> > question is, "Why was the name attribute deprecated?".
>
> Because (on the elements upon which it was deprecated) it did nothing
> except duplicate the functionality of the id attribute.
>
>
> --
> David Dorward   
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


-- 
Brett P.


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

Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

[Brett Patterson]

Sorry, forgot to add, that the purpose of XHTML, from what some of the top
designers and working group members have stated, I may have misinterpreted,
but XHTML was built to help designers/developers transition from HTML to
XML.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Brett Patterson <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From what I have read so far, you are pretty much agreeing with me. Hence,
> David, you said and I quote, "HTML 5 is "Everything you need to know to
> build a browser" with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in
> it.", therefore, HTML5 (not to be confused with xHTML or XHTML), is being
> phased out. It would have to be, especially considering the previous
> statement. If they are including some definition of HTML with XHTML, then
> they are trying to get HTML designers used to using the simplistical form of
> XHTML in XML syntax/serialisation/yada yada yada whatever, correct? SQL is a
> database manipulation language is it not? Like XML? So, all in all, HTML
> developers will move more into what the "purpose" of XHTML is, correct? And
> it would have to unify the schism if it is to include all of the above
> stated, is that not right? Because everything that has been said seems to
> agree with I originally stated and questioned. How does it not?
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:12 AM, David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > Perhaps I have missed something important: are we saying that HTML5 is
>> > essentially two different languages?
>>
>> HTML5 is "Everything you need to know to build a browser" with some
>> definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it.
>>
>> > I thought that it was supposed to unify the schism between HTML and
>> XHTML.
>>
>> It certainly doesn't do that.
>>
>> --
>> David Dorward   
>>
>>
>> ***
>> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ***
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Brett P.
>



-- 
Brett P.


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

Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

[Brett Patterson]

>From what I have read so far, you are pretty much agreeing with me. Hence,
David, you said and I quote, "HTML 5 is "Everything you need to know to
build a browser" with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in
it.", therefore, HTML5 (not to be confused with xHTML or XHTML), is being
phased out. It would have to be, especially considering the previous
statement. If they are including some definition of HTML with XHTML, then
they are trying to get HTML designers used to using the simplistical form of
XHTML in XML syntax/serialisation/yada yada yada whatever, correct? SQL is a
database manipulation language is it not? Like XML? So, all in all, HTML
developers will move more into what the "purpose" of XHTML is, correct? And
it would have to unify the schism if it is to include all of the above
stated, is that not right? Because everything that has been said seems to
agree with I originally stated and questioned. How does it not?

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:12 AM, David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Perhaps I have missed something important: are we saying that HTML5 is
> > essentially two different languages?
>
> HTML5 is "Everything you need to know to build a browser" with some
> definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it.
>
> > I thought that it was supposed to unify the schism between HTML and
> XHTML.
>
> It certainly doesn't do that.
>
> --
> David Dorward   
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


-- 
Brett P.


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

Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

[David Dorward]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Perhaps I have missed something important: are we saying that HTML5 is
> essentially two different languages?

HTML5 is "Everything you need to know to build a browser" with some
definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it.

> I thought that it was supposed to unify the schism between HTML and XHTML.

It certainly doesn't do that.

-- 
David Dorward   


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

RE: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

[michael.brockington]

Perhaps I have missed something important: are we saying that HTML5 is
essentially two different languages? I thought that it was supposed to
unify the schism between HTML and XHTML.

Mike 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of David Dorward
Sent: 26 November 2008 11:56
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  
> Now I am even more confused!  
> I was always under the impression that HTML4 and lower were valid
SGML.
> That XHTML1 and up were valid XML
> That XML was valid SGML
> 
> So how the ??? does that leave us with either 'serialisation' of the 
> new language being in-compatible with SGML?

HTML5 is not HTML 4 or lower, or XHTML, or XML (disregarding the XML
serialisation, as it isn't the serialisation being discussed).


-- 
David Dorward   


***
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] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

[Jonathan Haslett]

http://immike.net/blog/2008/02/06/xhtml-2-vs-html-5/

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:55 PM, David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Now I am even more confused!
> > I was always under the impression that HTML4 and lower were valid SGML.
> > That XHTML1 and up were valid XML
> > That XML was valid SGML
> >
> > So how the ??? does that leave us with either 'serialisation' of the new
> > language being in-compatible with SGML?
>
> HTML5 is not HTML 4 or lower, or XHTML, or XML (disregarding the XML
> serialisation, as it isn't the serialisation being discussed).
>
>
> --
> David Dorward   
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


-- 
Jonathan Haslett

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

0404 563 690


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

Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

[David Dorward]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  
> Now I am even more confused!  
> I was always under the impression that HTML4 and lower were valid SGML.
> That XHTML1 and up were valid XML
> That XML was valid SGML
> 
> So how the ??? does that leave us with either 'serialisation' of the new
> language being in-compatible with SGML?

HTML5 is not HTML 4 or lower, or XHTML, or XML (disregarding the XML
serialisation, as it isn't the serialisation being discussed).


-- 
David Dorward   


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

RE: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

[michael.brockington]

 
Now I am even more confused!  
I was always under the impression that HTML4 and lower were valid SGML.
That XHTML1 and up were valid XML
That XML was valid SGML

So how the ??? does that leave us with either 'serialisation' of the new
language being in-compatible with SGML?

Regards,
Mike

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of David Dorward
Sent: 26 November 2008 11:07
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why do you say that HTML5 will not be valid SGML? 

I didn't. I said it wouldn't be SGML. The syntax might (I haven't looked
closely enough at it to determine) be valid within the rules of SGML. I
don't think it can be parsed as SGML though.

"Because SGML has never been deployed in browsers and many html
authoring tools, HTML 5 defines a new serialization called html, which
looks a lot like the previous known SGML."

  -- http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/html5-is-html-and-xml.html

"For compatibility with existing content and prior specifications, this
specification describes two authoring formats: one based on XML
(referred to as XHTML5), and one using a custom format inspired by SGML"

  -- http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/

"While the HTML form of HTML5 bears a close resemblance to SGML and XML,
it is a separate language with its own parsing rules."

  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/parsing.html

-- 
David Dorward   


***
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] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

[David Dorward]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why do you say that HTML5 will not be valid SGML? 

I didn't. I said it wouldn't be SGML. The syntax might (I haven't looked
closely enough at it to determine) be valid within the rules of SGML. I
don't think it can be parsed as SGML though.

"Because SGML has never been deployed in browsers and many html
authoring tools, HTML 5 defines a new serialization called html, which
looks a lot like the previous known SGML."

  -- http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/html5-is-html-and-xml.html

"For compatibility with existing content and prior specifications, this
specification describes two authoring formats: one based on XML
(referred to as XHTML5), and one using a custom format inspired by SGML"

  -- http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/

"While the HTML form of HTML5 bears a close resemblance to SGML and XML,
it is a separate language with its own parsing rules."

  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/parsing.html

-- 
David Dorward   


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

RE: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

[michael.brockington]

> The HTML working group is working on HTML5 which will have two
serialisations. 
> A tag soup (and emphatically not SGML) serialisation 
> and an XML serialisation (which they are referring to as XHTML5).


Why do you say that HTML5 will not be valid SGML? 

Mike


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