Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
On 2/12/06, Stuart Sherwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At which point does one's right to do as one chooses start stepping on another one's right to access services? I believe there is no right to access services. Any such aberration of 'rights' that necessarily violates the legitimate rights of others is destructive to our liberty. The question regarding any so called right is: At whose expense?. If there is an answer, you have unmasked why it is illegitimate. True rights exist in and of themselves without cost to others. If a site is providing information or services to the public, then the public have a right to be able to access those services. Providing access to all of the public does not impinge on the rights of any other sector of that public. Accessibility and usability go hand in hand and improvements made to accessibility generally benefit all users, not just those with disabilities. I believe education is the key. Many site owners rely on the advice of their site designers and don't have a clue what Standards are, let alone what needs to be done to make a site accessible to the widest possible audience. Target were advised of the problems with their site ten months ago and chose not to fix them. The question that really intrigues me is that of where the responsibility actually lies? With Target (ultimately), with the Amazon engine that generates their site, or with the designers of the site themselves? It is certainly an interesting case. Education and asking nicely for fixes doesn't always work. Theodore Rooselvelt had the right idea, Speak softly and carry a big stick - unfortunately, as long as the ADA is seen to be a bricks and mortar law, it will not be a very effective stick. Lynne Pope ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Opera 8.5 css
Hi all, I have a site that is pretty close to pixel-perfect in IE Firefox. However, with Opera 8.5 I have run into problems with the layering of floats. It seems 8.5 is not recognising 'position: relative; z-index:n;' in the float layer. Does anyone know if this is a recognised bug? If it is, could you please direct me to a workaround? Thanks. Lynne ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] All in the Head: Document Type Definition
On 1/10/06, Martin Heiden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Document Type Definitions were AFAIK first used by SGML and later for defining XML and XHTML. Because of the limitations of the DTD Language XML Schema has been developed. XML Schema is kind of heavyweight so that many people use the simpler RELAX NG instead. Now I am getting confused! LOL XML is a subset of SGML - right? But DTD's define the elements. attributes and entities of the document type, and their order, and just happen to use SGML to do so. SGML not XML - or am I missing something? Lynne ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply]
I didn't want my first contribution to the group to be a comment on another person's website, but as you said you are learning Bob I thought you might find this helpful. The problem with browser sniffing is that you have to be very careful to serve the right information. At the moment, your site does not validate for css or for HTML 4.01. In IE, your site shows meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8. It needs to be sent with the text/html mime type. A little tweak to your php code and you will have it nailed ;) Regards,LynneOn 1/6/06, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The approach I use (I'm learning, incidentally)was triggered originally by Georg :write your page as XHTML ( 1.1 even) and serve it whilst testing as application/xhtml+xml.When it validates and there are no well formedness errors, you can serve it in any way you want/need, knowing that 'it's ready'.For anyone who hasn't seen it, a great way to actually use the resulting code is to use PHP to check the http_accept and insert the DTD header/mimetype as appropriate (see http://www.workingwith.me.uk/articles/scripting/mimetypes/I have used this approach on my site ( [1 ]below) and this serves the pages as html 4.01 to IE , and xhtml1.1 to 'modern browsers like FF, Opera, etc.I'm not sure of the real world value at this time, but certainly it is an excellent discipline in helping me write well formed pages.Best Regards, Bob McClellandCornwall (UK)[1]http://www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
Re: [WSG] XHTML again
Hi Bob,Your splash page validates in xhtml, but the rest of your site has css errors: Errors URI : http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/rhh/gam/altgam/altgam.cssLine: 6 Context : html Property text-justify doesn't exist : newspaper Line: 62 Context : #container Property text-justify doesn't exist : newspaperIt does not validate at all as HTML 4.01 Strict - are you sure you are checking validation against that DOCTYPE?Cheers,Lynne On 1/7/06, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Lynne,Thanks for your comments.Unless I'm very much mistaken, it 'is' sent as text/html - that's thepoint. OK, it does say that it is application/xhtml+xml in the meta tag,but that is just ignored when it's sent with the correct mime type. Also, try as I might, I can't get it to be invalid when using the w3cchecker. . .??If I'm missing something here, perhaps one of our learned colleagueswill tell me?--Best Regards, Bob McClellandCornwall (UK)www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
Re: [WSG] absolute positioned a not where it should be
The li triggers white space issues in IE. You will need to add some conditional statements to insert an IE workaround for this issue.Cheers,LynneOn 1/7/06, Taco Fleur - Pacific Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Didn't see my first message hit the list so I thought I'd try again, excuses if it did arrive the first time. Is anyone able to tell me why in Internet Explorer the read more... link is not positioned where it should be? The li itemis positioned relative, the a link itself is positioned absolute, right: 0; top: 0; which should place it to the border of the li item not outside the ol item, in FireFox it looks good but not in IE. Link:http:// testing.pacificfox.com/price/ CSS:http:// testing.pacificfox.com/_resource/css/default.css Any help much appreciated.
Re: [WSG] absolute positioned a not where it should be
Conditional statements are, in my opinion, the best way to handle IE hacks (especially with the likely introduction of more problems to deal with when IE7 is released). You can just take the route of adding IE hacks into your css if you are not familiar with the if, then, else types of conditional scripting. An example conditional statement is: !--[if IE] style /style ![endif]-- - with your IE styling included between the tags. Note: you put this into the pages either by hardcoding or calling through an include. I hope this helps. Lynne On 1/7/06, Taco Fleur - Pacific Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Lynne, thanks a million, and I not familiar with conditional statements, are you able to give me an example? Kind regards, Taco Fleur - Chief Executive Officer Pacific Fox http://www.pacificfox.com.au an industry leader with commercial IT experience since 1994 … Web Design andDevelopment SMS Solutions, including developerAPI Domain Registration, .COM for aslow as fifteen dollars a year, .COM.AU for fifty dollars twoyears! BlackBerry(r) BusinessSolutions www.OzBlackBerry.com We endorse PayPal, acceptpayments online now! Seamless Merchantintegration
Re: [WSG] absolute positioned a not where it should be
On 1/7/06, Taco Fleur - Pacific Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, so this conditional style will only work in Internet Explorer is that right? It depends on how you write a conditional statement but the example I gave you is for IE, yes. It says, if IE, then do something. Sorry, just never used anything like this, if something didn't work I just did it another way, never implemented a hack for something. Question; is there some reading material in regards to this problem that I am having that you know off? Yes, just do a Google search for white space issues with IE. You will get thousands of pages of informaton. Cheers, Lynne ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] XHTML again
On 1/7/06, Gunlaug Sørtun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not as easy to hide proprietary and 'not-yet-recommended' CSS from the validator, as it is with all the garbage often needed to make IE/win behave. OTOH: hiding something in a conditional comment (or in a 'non-existent stylesheet', like I do at times) doesn't make it more valid - just hidden. Conditional statements are not hidden, they just do whatever you code them to do. They are a valid markup. BTW: non-valid CSS doesn't affect HTML/XHTML status/validity at all. True. However, if we are coding to standards then it pays to be aware of any coding errors in css. You can't look at each standard in a vacuum. It does not validate at all as HTML 4.01 Strict - are you sure you are checking validation against that DOCTYPE? This sounds a bit strange to me. Which source-code should be checked as HTML4.01? Given the fact that the validator is fed an XHTML1.1 page with the correct MIME-type by default, is it even possible to check that source-code as HTML? I would think not. Enforcing the validator wouldn't work - and it shouldn't since the source-code isn't 'HTML4.01 Anything' when it's served to the validator. And your point is? I made the comment that the site does not validate as HTML 4.01, did you see me say how I validated it? Anyone designing a site to render as one DOCTYPE in some browsers and another DOCTYPE for other browsers, and who wishes to have the pages validate against both DOCTYPES would, I assume, check the validation for both. This can be done in many ways, such as entering the source code, or in cases where the person looking at the code is sufficiently experienced, just looking can show there are errors. The validators themselves tell you that they have limitations. A page can validate according to the W3C online service but, in fact, not be valid. It all comes down to how closely any developer wishes to adhere to standards and how much of a purist anyone is when it comes to correct coding ;) Cheers, Lynne ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
