[WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Hello, I'm out of the office April 27 and 30. Should you need immediate assistance, please write to Mark Cramer at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll get back to you ASAP on Tuesday, May 1. Thanks, Wayne Randall *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] ASP, PHP and Ruby - oh my!
Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote: [...] since ASP is obviously over whether its a good tool or not. [...] Thanks, www.asp.net ** 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] Scrolling A Div
Take a look at http://wiki.script.aculo.us/scriptaculous/show/SliderDemo hth :) w.// Chris Kennon wrote: Hi, I'm curious if anyone has knowledge on creating a custom scrollbar graphic for controlling a div? I've seen custom buttons and can go this route, but would like a custom scrollbar , similar to what you can create in FLASH for a textField. Sorry for using the (f) word :) Respectfully, Chris ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] Your email requires verification verify#a6vQxgsxnTQ2Ky73eCXlkHoHksHXd3PV
OMG, a list of web proffesionals non-the-less! On 12/12/05, Natalie Buxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can People PLEASE stop replying to this rubbish email.The list does NOT require you to reply. Can an Admin please take care of it? On 12/13/05, Fenguly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 写道:Due to the volume of Spam around the internet, and in the interests of keeping the internet as spam-free as possible, unfortunately, the message you sent requires that you verify that you are a real live human being and not a spam source. To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the subject line intact.Full apologies to those legitimate messages that are being verified, but, you will only need to verify once! Thanks for your assistance in helping to clear the internet of spam! The headers of the message sent from your address are show below:From wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Mon Dec 12 12:04:07 2005Received: from [ 216.119.112.83] (helo= mail.webboy.net) by spirit.premierservers.com with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Elr5p-0001Il-0y for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:04:07 -0500From: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgMIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; charset=Windows-1252; boundary=SM_c877dea0-6c92-451d-af83-7fb727368263Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:45:46 1100message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help** ** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML = Is it still REAL LY valid?
Making an element invalid, whether it be in the HTML or through JS, makes that element invalid. The validator might not catch it but the fact stands. Correct me if I am wrong. HTH :] w .// Jamie Mason wrote: Hi all, Did I ask something really daft here or...? I'd appreciate your help or opinions. Thanks, Jamie Mason Skybet.com *From:* Jamie Mason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* 09 November 2005 11:10 *To:* 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org' *Subject:* [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML = Is it still REALLY valid? Hi all, I was looking at the source of the Fisheye demo after reading about it here on WSG - hoping it would be valid. It contains it's own made up attributes which devalidate the code. So then I thought fine, I'll just take them out the source and write them in with JavaScript onload instead, making sure it degrades well. But that's where I thought, is that REALLY valid? It'll pass at the W3C validator but my generated source is going to be invalid. Screen readers in my fairly limited understanding (sorry, I'm still young and learning :) ) don't use JavaScript so *should* be ok right? Which groups of users would be affected by this? Respectfully, and thanks in advance. Jamie Mason Skybet.com ** 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] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML = Is it still REAL LY valid?
It's a tricky one How? If a tree falls in a wood and no-one hears it - does it still make a noise? w .// Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Quoting Jamie Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi all, Did I ask something really daft here or...? I'd appreciate your help or opinions. I'm at d.Construct at the moment, but I've been formulating a reply over the last few days. It's a tricky one...but I'll be attempting a reply once I'm back :) P ** 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] css instead of JS(ajax)
That has about as much to do with AJAX as my mother does. Whats wrong with using the fisheye widget? Dojo code is standards compliant, effiecientJS. Why would you try to do something like that in _pure_ CSS? If your going to do that you might as well try to do it in plain text aswell. HTH w On 11/8/05, Jad Madi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi,any idea if it's possible to create menu like this one pure css without JS ? http://dojotoolkit.org/~alex/dojo/trunk/demos/widget/Fisheye.htmlif yes, please shot a kickstart--RegardsJad madiBloghttp://EasyHTTP.com/jad/Web standards Planet http://W3planet.net/**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Standards and .NET
http://www.codeproject.com/aspnet/ASPNET2XHTML.asp VS2005 drastically improves this situ. hth :] w Chris Kennon wrote: Hi, Yesterday I spoke with you all regarding issues with using CSS and .NET. Below is the site underdevelopment. I'm told div's are casuing a problem, in addition to tdth Could someone look over this and offer suggestions, on Standards based implementation with .NET /Today we found screen resolution Problem. Please test different screen/ /resolutions also try to use tables instead of div tags./ / / Try the following link to get an idea of what we are getting. http://www.red-threads.com/beacontest/processes.aspx ** 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] Clearleft.com
Title: RE: [WSG] Clearleft.com Hi Komal, where are the tables in that site??? Are you sure your looking at the right site? w From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Komal AgrawalSent: Tue 20/09/2005 17:15To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: RE: [WSG] Clearleft.com Suggestion #1: Spell-checkSuggestion #2: Why 100% table design? You can't control the way your usersees your site. I have a 21 inch monitor and it stretches all the way acrossand is somewhat overwhelming.Suggestion #3: Font size it too big...try dropping the size a little. I knowaccessibility is a concern, but it coming off as trying too hard.This is just my opinion...I might be wrong, good job overall however.PS - your personal website is quite nice however, clean, crisp, and the userwill have the same experience every time they visit, regardless of themachine.KomalKomal AgrawalWeb Developer II713.743.7220Office # 102F[EMAIL PROTECTED]C. T. Bauer College of BusinessU N I V E R S I T Y of H O U S T O N-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andy BuddSent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 10:59 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: [WSG] Clearleft.comHi folks,We've just launched our new company website, and would love yourfeedback.http://www.clearleft.com/YoursAndy Buddhttp://www.andybudd.com/01273 24135507880 636677**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting helpThe discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
[WSG] Spec box and leaders
Is there a way to make leaders for use in an automotive Specifications box? I have a ton of specs to place on a web page and I'm baffled as how to do this with XHTML and CSS. A quick example below. I do this all the time in InDesign and Quark but this is a first for me on the web. Can it be done or does someone have a better thought process? Gear Ratios: 1st...3.59 2nd..2.19 3rd..1.41 4th..1.00 5th..0.83 Reverse3.16 Any help will be greatly appreciated! wayne Wayne Godfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] Proper IE Hacks
I feel a bit dumb asking this, but there's so much to learn and some
things sink in better than others! Anyway, I've had to do some hacks to
get IE to display my site correctly. Now those hacks are causing my CSS
to not validate. The question is what is the proper way to fix this
predicament? I'd like to put IE hacks in a separate file on import
(ie.css) and leave my current CSS (main.css) hack-free. Or I'd like to
at least know how to correctly use comments. A sample is below and any
help will be greatly appreciated.
body.index #main {
margin-left: 250px;
_margin-left: 245px; /* IE hack */
margin-right: 15px;
_margin-right: 10px; /* IE hack */
background-color: transparent;
}
I have eight areas where the hacks are used. Is it possible to put all
these hacks in a separate file and get my clean CSS back?
IE Hacks CSS:
body.index #main {
_margin-left: 245px;
_margin-right: 10px;
}
Clean CSS:
body.index #main {
margin-left: 250px;
margin-right: 15px;
background-color: transparent;
}
Or is there a better way to do this?
wayne
Wayne Godfrey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**
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] Proper IE Hacks
So my brain has made this entirely too complicated, huh? Can't imagine that! I'm using an @import rule, so my good style sheet would remain the same (sans IE hacks) and I can put only the IE hacks in a file with the conditional comments around it, is that correct? That's so simple. Thanks David, you saved my butt again! wayne Wayne Godfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Aug 8, 2005, at 6:57 PM, David Laakso wrote: Wayne Godfrey wrote: I feel a bit dumb asking this, but there's so much to learn and some things sink in better than others! Anyway, I've had to do some hacks to get IE to display my site correctly. Now those hacks are causing my CSS to not validate. The question is what is the proper way to fix this predicament? [...] Wayne Godfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] One method is to feed styles to good browsers in the usual manner; and feed ie its styles using 'conditional comments.' The good guys get everything but the hacks: style.css link rel=stylesheet href=style.css type=text/css / The evil one gets only the hacks: style-ie.css (note the re-name for this ie file). !--[if lte IE 6] link rel=stylesheet href=style-ie.css type=text/css / ![endif]-- The validator will not see or choke on the 'conditional comments' so you'll validate; and you are good to go when IE7 hits the street. Regards, David Laakso -- David Laakso http://www.dlaakso.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] Visual Studio/.net general question
I think you will find that coldfusion makes life harder in respect to web standards compliance. The code I have seen being churned out looks like it has gone through a mangler with huge chunks of white space etc. In general though, I agree with James, the server side language should not really hinder this, I am developing a couple of sites using ASP.NET and the layout is pure CSS using XHTML strict. The IDE might have more effect on this as some of them play around with your code, but that is easily averted by not using design view and taking the time to configure them properly. W -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kvnmcwebn Sent: 23 July 2005 11:39 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Visual Studio/.net general question Recently i worked on a project that involved visual studio and the whole asp.net thing. I was reading on the maxdesign site that they only use asp by special request as it is not a rapid development solution. I guess my question is this-is cold fusion the proper way to build dynamimc sites with regards to web standards? Forgive me if this is to ot. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] Visual Studio/.net general question
Er, wwwhat?? If you use the controls provided by MS (validation controls etc), then yes, the code is junk. But who in their right mind uses those anyway? Who has ever used those? That aside, how else does .NET mangle code? I am sorry but that was not a good reply. I have built sites in XHTML STRICT/CSS that uses .NET code behind and VALIDATES 100%. If you are in the habit of dragging and dropping your websites into existence then no, it wont validate, but then I suspect it wont validate in any language. At the end of the day it is down to the developer, their lack of knowledge and sloppy coding which makes a language produce sloppy code. Explain to me how that is wrong. W From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of csslist Sent: 23 July 2005 18:27 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Visual Studio/.net general question what? thats a big load of BS! what does using coldfusion have to do with mangling your code? if you do a simple google search you will find out the what mangles code and makes it a lot more work to unmangle is .net and vs, which is what u'd expect when you let m$ write any of your code for you (look at frontpage code and decide if you want m$ to write your code). coldfusion actually makes it much easier to control your layout code because of its tag based syntax and ease of use porting it into your pages. Sorry wayne but that wasnt a good answer ;) most of the server sides are good with compliance except .net, which you obviously can get to work but it requires much more time to unmangle what ms gives you which shouldnt be a suprise to anyone!!! The code I have seen being churned out looks like it has gone through a mangler with huge chunks of white space etc. then you are comparing what you yourseld do to someone using cfm that doesnt know how to do it correctly, those chucks of whitespace are obviously when cfm code is and a simple solution it to wrap code thats in the presentaion view with cfsilentcfm code/cfsilent and that will take away the whitespace. ASP.NET does not produce code that is capable of passing successful validation in any of the SRTICT modes (see Eric Meyer's Picking a Rendering Mode and W3C's List of valid DTDs you can use in your document for more information on DOCTYPEs). To enforce XHTML compliant code it takes some effort to implement automatic code cleaning (all right, fudging). From: wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:54 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Visual Studio/.net general question I think you will find that coldfusion makes life harder in respect to web standards compliance. The code I have seen being churned out looks like it has gone through a mangler with huge chunks of white space etc. In general though, I agree with James, the server side language should not really hinder this, I am developing a couple of sites using ASP.NET and the layout is pure CSS using XHTML strict. The IDE might have more effect on this as some of them play around with your code, but that is easily averted by not using design view and taking the time to configure them properly. W -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kvnmcwebn Sent: 23 July 2005 11:39 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Visual Studio/.net general question Recently i worked on a project that involved visual studio and the whole asp.net thing. I was reading on the maxdesign site that they only use asp by special request as it is not a rapid development solution. I guess my question is this-is cold fusion the proper way to build dynamimc sites with regards to web standards? Forgive me if this is to ot. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
XAML is a document definition language which doesnt rely on a browser. It is a whole new technology which allows us to develop applications which are fed from a server. There is no browser. IE doesn't even come into it. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jeroen Visser|vizi Sent: Fri 15/07/2005 08:11 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards? On Jul 15, 2005, at 2:54 AM, Paul Ross wrote: [From a PC mag article] In a nutshell, Avalon means developers are now free to code without considering the resolution of users' monitors. This ensures that apps developed in this environment will work on just about any display, from mobile phones and PDAs to wide-screen notebooks and high-end desktop systems. I would say that this statement is not the complete story. The available canvas still is of interest to web developers and coders -- whether the OS works with pixels or Bezier curves. Basically, the users' human factors, combined with the monitor's width, height and resolution, determine how many menu items (or icons) will fit next to eachother. A 23 widescreen display still would offer a lot more space to organize content, branding and navigation than a typical handheld device. Don't throw your dedicated handheld-optimized version out of the window yet. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? If you want scalabale vector graphics online, I'd still go with Flash. It'll take some time before a version of IE with the necessary XHTML/SVG/CSS support has a strong enough user base to warrant a switch from plugin to browser-only. Jeroen ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** winmail.dat
RE: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
I dont think XAML needs to be hosted inside IE? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Justin Carter Sent: Fri 15/07/2005 02:19 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards? I dont think Avalon and XAML will directly impact the production of ordinary websites, but I think it may well stir up the world of web applications. Yes you will be able to host an application using XAML inside a web browser (presumably only IE?), but building a website this way would be a little bit crazy and severely limit your audience. Avalon will actually run on Windows XP as well as Longhorn - so there is the potentional for it to be quite widespread - however that still means that it'll be restricted to these two OS's which really isn't good enough if you're dedicated to accessibility. But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform.. :) On 7/15/05, Paul Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello folks, I was reading the June 2005 issue of APC (Australian Personal Computer) magazine which has a cover story on unique features built into the long-awaited Windows Longhorn OS including the Avalon presentation system/user interface. This section really got me thinking: The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts icons), meaning designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping elements using pixels and x/y coordinates. In a nutshell, Avalon means developers are now free to code without considering the resolution of users' monitors. This ensures that apps developed in this environment will work on just about any display, from mobile phones and PDAs to wide-screen notebooks and high-end desktop systems. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? I searched the archives and no-one seems to have asked this question to the list before? What are peoples thoughts...? Regards PAUL ROSS SkyRocket Design Co http://www.skyrocket.com.au ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** winmail.dat
Re: [WSG] IE's doing it again
Maybe I wasn't specific enough, this layout works just fine. My main content (middle column) is first in the source code. When I hooked the layout to my database all the clearing worked as promised. My problem is in the header and specifically the subnav which, in IE, throws the rest of the layout out of whack. The logo and main nav are fixed in size, but I would like the subnav font to size up or down as the rest of the layout does. My original layout was based on the article in ALA, that's where I ran into my clearing problems since it also cleared the left column and doesn't put the main content area first. Again, the files: http://vtest.jrations.com/test_page.php http://www.jrations.com/css/main_final.css w Wayne Godfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jul 4, 2005, at 12:40 AM, David Laakso wrote: Wayne Godfrey wrote: I've started building a new template to get my main content section as the first item in the source and solve some of my clearing problems. Works great everywhere, except, now image this, Internet Deplorer. The problem seems to be within either the nav or subnav lists that follow one another. I've gone around in circles to no avail. The file and CSS both validate and work on Safari, FF and Opera on the Mac side. IE doesn't play on Windows or the Mac side. I'm not sure if its my lists or the layout. Any help will be greatly appreciated. The files: http://vtest.jrations.com/test_page.php http://www.jrations.com/css/main_final.css Wayne Godfrey Wayne, I'm sure someone will come up with all the hacks to make it work the way you want. But if not, since your main content isn't the first item in the source anyway, I'd suggest trying a stable 3 col layout that's known to work cross-browser http://www.alistapart.com/articles/negativemargins/. Put it in quirks mode to make it easy on yourself for IE, adjust the widths of the side columns to meet your need, add position relative to anything with a negative margin(for Mac/ie5.2), and enclose the whole ball of wax in a fixed width container-- tweak for Win/5x, and you're good to go... we'll almost. fwiw, check your current layout with images disabled. Good luck. David Laakso -- David Laakso http://www.dlaakso.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] IE's doing it again
This is breaking my heart, as I love the structure of the source. I tried the clear myself before asking for help, but it still messes up IE/win, as you found out. I'll try to get the CSS file back down to basics and see if I can get it to work a little bit at a time. Thanks for the help and if anyone else has any ideas, I'm still hoping! wayne Wayne Godfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jul 4, 2005, at 6:07 PM, Nick Gleitzman wrote: On 5 Jul 2005, at 2:15 AM, Wayne Godfrey wrote: My problem is in the header and specifically the subnav which, in IE, throws the rest of the layout out of whack. The logo and main nav are fixed in size, but I would like the subnav font to size up or down as the rest of the layout does. Wayne, broken layout, as I see it in IE5.2/Mac, is that subnav links lie on the same line as navbar, immediately to right of Advertise link - and they should be on their own line, below and centered. Yes? If so, I fixed this by adding clear:both to the css declaration for #subnav ul. Display is now the same in IE5 as in Safari, FF. Aagh - just checked the page in IE6/Win. See what you mean - that's quite a mess. Sorry, haven't got *that* much time right now... your css file is just too long to deconstruct quickly. At a glance, though, it looks like IE's broken box model implementation... Hope the 'clear' gets you started, at least. N ___ Omnivision. Websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] IE's doing it again
I've started building a new template to get my main content section as the first item in the source and solve some of my clearing problems. Works great everywhere, except, now image this, Internet Deplorer. The problem seems to be within either the nav or subnav lists that follow one another. I've gone around in circles to no avail. The file and CSS both validate and work on Safari, FF and Opera on the Mac side. IE doesn't play on Windows or the Mac side. I'm not sure if its my lists or the layout. Any help will be greatly appreciated. The files: http://vtest.jrations.com/test_page.php http://www.jrations.com/css/main_final.css wayne Wayne Godfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] Constraining images
The site I'm working on loads images and product descriptions via a database to my page template. As it now stands, there is a headline, body copy and one image that usually floats right. The image and headline also serve as links to the product's web site. I would like to be able to enlarge the image but not lose the link. I've seen the use of zoom images whereby, on rollover, the image enlarges changing the flow of the text. I like the effect, the problem is, I have tons of images, very few the same size and coding each individually is nuts, even for me! Is it possible using CSS to constrain the image sizes by creating two or three classes, whereby the image width becomes fixed and the height constrains accordingly, using percentages, ems or ??? Or am I totally out in left field and this can only be accomplished through either client- or server-side solutions? Any help will be greatly appreciated. wayne Wayne Godfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] Constraining images
The pages are set to load only four products and images at a time, so
hopefully that won't be too much of a drain to dial-up connections. My
choice would be to use only one image (and as little js as possible!),
so I'll give your way I try and see what happens. Thank you so much.
w
Wayne Godfrey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jun 30, 2005, at 9:00 PM, Bert Doorn wrote:
G'day
Wayne Godfrey wrote:
Is it possible using CSS to constrain the image sizes by creating two
or three classes, whereby the image width becomes fixed and the
height constrains accordingly, using percentages, ems or ???
If you don't specify a height on the image, but do specify a width (be
that in css or in the html), the height should adjust automatically
(once the browser has fetched the image and knows its dimensions).
Quick css example:
.ProductLink img { width: 100px; }
.ProductLink:hover img { width: 200px; }
Or better still, set it on the container, e.g.
.Products a img { width: 100px; }
.Products a:hover img { width: 200px; }
AFAIK, the only problem with not specifying height is that the browser
won't know how much space to reserve for the image in its layout. It
will then either adjust things as the page loads or delay displaying
it until the images are loaded. Could be a problem if there's a lot
of them, especially on dial-up.
If the image is to be replaced on hover, you'll probably need
javascript (someone correct me if it can be done with CSS)
HTH
--
Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
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] Constraining images
Ideally I would like to use only one image at it's largest size, say
200px wide, I can control the width, what I have no control over is the
height. I also need the image to float right (sorry to be so needy!)
and ideally I would like to get to two or three classes to solve this,
IF indeed the images will constrain. I've found this code and it works:
#zoom a img {
float:right;
height: 198px;
width: 150px;
margin: 0 15px 5px 5px;
}
#zoom a:hover img {
height: 329px;
width: 250px;
}
But like I said, this requires me to code each image individually,
using the above or even what you've given me below, can I eliminate the
height and keep the image constrained?
w
Wayne Godfrey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jun 30, 2005, at 10:12 PM, Paul Novitski wrote:
At 06:00 PM 6/30/2005, Bert Doorn wrote:
If the image is to be replaced on hover, you'll probably need
javascript (someone correct me if it can be done with CSS)
CSS can't replace foreground images but certainly can replace
background images:
.Products a
{
display: block;
width: 100px;
height: 200px;
background: url(somethingSmall.jpg) no-repeat;
}
.Products a:hover
{
width: 200px;
height: 400px;
background: url(somethingLarge.jpg) no-repeat;
}
At 11:36 AM 6/30/2005, Wayne Godfrey wrote:
I have tons of images, very few the same size and coding each
individually is nuts, even for me! Is it possible using CSS to
constrain the image sizes by creating two or three classes, whereby
the image width becomes fixed and the height constrains accordingly,
using percentages, ems or ???
A potential problem with this background-image solution is that you
have to stipulate the image's container dimensions in the stylesheet.
Note that I didn't say you had to stipulate the image's own
dimensions. Because I've set the background to no-repeat, the image
will appear only once even if the container is larger than the image.
Therefore this kind of solution could work if you knew the maximum
actual image dimensions.
Background-images also cannot be sized on the fly -- they'll show up
at their original dimensions, regardless of the container's size.
Also, there will be a download delay on hover unless you pre-load the
large images.
Paul
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
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] Constraining images
I actually got it to work using a little bit of everyone's information.
Thanks to everyone who helped out...
w
Wayne Godfrey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jun 30, 2005, at 11:01 PM, Kevin Futter wrote:
On 1/7/05 12:41 PM, Wayne Godfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ideally I would like to use only one image at it's largest size, say
200px wide, I can control the width, what I have no control over is
the
height. I also need the image to float right (sorry to be so needy!)
and ideally I would like to get to two or three classes to solve this,
IF indeed the images will constrain. I've found this code and it
works:
#zoom a img {
float:right;
height: 198px;
width: 150px;
margin: 0 15px 5px 5px;
}
#zoom a:hover img {
height: 329px;
width: 250px;
}
But like I said, this requires me to code each image individually,
using the above or even what you've given me below, can I eliminate
the
height and keep the image constrained?
If I understand correctly what you're trying to do, then yes, the
images
will remain constrained at the width you set, with the browser
automatically
adjusting the height to preserve the image's aspect ratio. Just leave
the
height declaration out of your CSS and/or HTML. You'll get a fixed
width
with variable height.
--
Kevin Futter
Webmaster, St. Bernard's College
http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
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] accesability and backwards compatibility - WAS [Hi there!]
Hi I am having a similar problem with a site I am developing. I have tried to make it XHTML and CSS compliant. The problem I am having other than minor discrepancies between browsers is that in Safari and IE on OSX 9.0 and maybe even some others, the whole layout goes skew-whiff. Should I even concern myself with this? Its for a design agency who is now saying that this is a requirement; I have said that if they want an accessible site written in CSS they cant have it looking exactly the same in older browsers that dont support CSS 2.0 unless I use old skool presentation techniques. Has anyone else run into this problem? I suspect there are plenty of people, Id be interested to hear what thoughts others had on this subject. Cheers Wayne w: www.freelance-developer.co.ok e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Maarten Stolte Sent: 21 June 2005 20:51 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Hi there! Hi, also note that when using XHTML, say with help from Designing with Webstandards from Jeffrey Zeldman, you can make a site that looks great in newer browsers, and also works in older browsers... Maarten Erica Jean wrote: Thanks to both of you for the links :) I really appreciate it ^^ ---Original Message--- From: Brian Cummiskey Date: 06/21/05 15:31:52 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Hi there! Erica Jean wrote: Is there somewhere I could download older browsers for testing by chance? http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=msie http://wp.netscape.com/download/archive/ ** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] accesability and backwards compatibility - WAS [Hi ther e!]
Hi Patrick Thanks for such an insightful reply. I have looked at the spec and as I thought, we agreed on IE (5.5/6.0) and FF on Mac and Windows. I guess I am going to have to write an email explaining my position. Cheers W -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Drake, Ted C. Sent: 21 June 2005 21:48 To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org' Subject: RE: [WSG] accesability and backwards compatibility - WAS [Hi ther e!] Hi Patrick Thanks for a thoughtful reply. It's easy to get lost in the arguments of whether or not to support an outdated browser and forget that sometimes our obligations are more personal. It's important to remember what you promised the client. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 1:38 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] accesability and backwards compatibility - WAS [Hi there!] wayne wrote: It's for a design agency who is now saying that this is a requirement; And that's the crux of the argument: if the project documentation clearly states that the site must work and look same/similar even in older browsers, then that's what you've got to deliver. I always make a point of clarifying exactly, even before taking on a job, what minimum spec I'm developing for. Based on that, you make your choice: a) IE5+, Netscape6+, etc: CSS driven layout, minimal styles fed to older browsers; site is still usable and accessible in old user agents, just not pretty; b) must support Netscape4.x (even in terms of look and feel): clean table based holder, most of the rest still done via CSS; I have said that if they want an accessible site written in CSS they can't have it looking exactly the same in older browsers that don't support CSS 2.0 unless I use 'old skool' presentation techniques. Keep in mind that even in the days before this whole CSS-driven layout renaissance, it was possible to create fairly accessible sites. Table-based layout does not necessarily mean that accessibility has to take a back seat. Sure, you *should* use CSS, and only *should* use tables for tabular data, but if you don't, then WCAG 1.0 still has a few tips and then sends you on your merry way. Has anyone else run into this problem? I suspect there are plenty of people, I'd be interested to hear what thoughts others had on this subject. As I mentioned above, it comes down to clearly stating client/agency expectations. The project documentation needs to be crystal clear about what platforms/browsers the site needs to work under, and on which it has to also LOOK good. Whether you then choose to go for CSS-driven or table-based is strongly influenced by these factors. And even layout tables can be accessible, if used wisely and sparingly. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re*dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] Standards and ADS
I can't believe this subject just came up. I'm about ready to have to deal with advertising myself, but not something as simple as Google ads. What happens to dealing with Flash based ads as well as some the other horrible formats that are going to be thrown into my site. I have outlawed pop-ups and unders but there will probably be a few table-based and who knows what else. I have been seriously considering going to an elastic design for my next version (the first one is static) and wondered how I would deal with this especially with my market, which is still based in last century web. wayne Wayne Godfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jun 14, 2005, at 1:36 PM, Roger Johansson wrote: On 14 jun 2005, at 14.20, Jad Madi wrote: Hi Will ADS break web standards in any mean ? such as Google ads, and Amazon ads? Yes. You need to use some workarounds to be able to serve Google ads if you use application/xhtml+xml to deliver XHTML. More info here: http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200409/ content_negotiation_adsense_and_comments/ The iframe created by the ad script still contains old-skool tag-soup though. No way around that. /Roger -- http://www.456bereastreet.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] IE's driving me crazy
For some unknown reason IE Win is bent on driving me crazy (I'm sure it's all the nice things I've said). The file listed below works in Safari, FF, Opera and even IE on Mac as well as FF on Win. The CSS validates as does the XHTML, but on IE Win there is a huge space between my h1 and the table below it. Now, I really stink at tables, but this one needs to be, so I'm not sure if it's my lousy table code or something else. I also have two other pages that have similar tables that are doing the same thing. Any help will be greatly appreciated as I'm about blind and out of answers on my end! The file: http://vtest.jrations.com/hubs-n-such.php The CSS: http://www.jrations.com/css/main_test.css http://www.jrations.com/css/hubs.css The second CSS file controls the table on this page. Thanks in advance, w Wayne Godfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] IE's driving me crazy
Thanks to all that helped save the few remaining strands of hair left
on my head! I'll implement this and see what happens. I'm still a bit
confused as to why the left div, which has only a structural width
applied to it, would affect the main column? There is no padding,
margins or border applied there...
You all are the greatest bunch of people to work with... Thank you so
much, maybe I'll even get some sleep tonight as well!!
w
Wayne Godfrey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jun 13, 2005, at 9:50 PM, Zachary Hopkins wrote:
Removing width: 100%;, fixes the problem in IE, but causes the table
to shift to the left in Mozilla/Firefox and Opera.
I changed the margin on /#main #hubs table/ to be 0 for top/bottom and
auto for the sides.
This seems to fix all the problems.
Final, Edited CSS from /hubs.css/:
#main #hubs {
display: block;
position: relative;
margin: .75em 0 2em 0;
}
#main #hubs table {
width: 400px;
border-top: 1px solid #eee;
border-left: 1px solid #eee;
border-collapse: collapse;
margin: 0 auto;
}
Hope this helps. :-)
--Zachary Hopkins
Wayne Godfrey wrote:
For some unknown reason IE Win is bent on driving me crazy (I'm sure
it's all the nice things I've said). The file listed below works in
Safari, FF, Opera and even IE on Mac as well as FF on Win. The CSS
validates as does the XHTML, but on IE Win there is a huge space
between my h1 and the table below it. Now, I really stink at
tables, but this one needs to be, so I'm not sure if it's my lousy
table code or something else. I also have two other pages that have
similar tables that are doing the same thing. Any help will be
greatly appreciated as I'm about blind and out of answers on my end!
The file:
http://vtest.jrations.com/hubs-n-such.php
The CSS:
http://www.jrations.com/css/main_test.css
http://www.jrations.com/css/hubs.css
The second CSS file controls the table on this page.
Thanks in advance,
w
Wayne Godfrey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
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] IE won't play
Sorry, got waylaid on a few other pressing problems. This answer makes
complete sense and I feel like a dummy for missing it altogether!
Thanks to everyone on the list for your help.
w
Wayne Godfrey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 12, 2005, at 11:11 PM, Ben Crothers wrote:
Hi Wayne,
Looks like it's the set width that you're using. If you're already
using
margins on the H2, why not dispense with the width and add the right
margin,
like so:
#main #homer h2 {
font-size: 117%;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: 0.06em;
line-height: 1.75em;
color: #FFF;
margin: 25px 210px 15px 10px;
text-align: left;
}
This works for me in IE (and the others). That help?
Ben Crothers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Wayne Godfrey
Sent: Friday, 13 May 2005 11:43 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] IE won't play
The 380px worked for the top h1 but now IE is centering the h2 text
underneath, even though the CSS says align left. Getting there, but
why is
IE doing this?
w
Wayne Godfrey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 12, 2005, at 9:05 PM, Ben Crothers wrote:
...or width: 380px; ...?
Ben Crothers
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Mike Pepper
Sent: Friday, 13 May 2005 10:48 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] IE won't play
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Wayne Godfrey
Sent: 13 May 2005 01:13
For some dumb reason, IE wants to
drop my text way down on the background image instead putting it at
the top as the other browsers do.
Your width is a little wide -
#main #homer {
display: block;
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
width: 390px;
z-index: 20;
}
Make is a tad less and it'll be fine.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Pepper
Accessible Web Developer
Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst
http://www.seowebsitepromotion.com
Administrator
Guild of Accessible Web Designers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gawds.org
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
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] IE won't play
Thanks Mike, but that didn't work. I tried reducing the width from
390px to 385px and also changing to width: 100%, neither worked. This
is so frustrating.
w
Wayne Godfrey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 12, 2005, at 8:47 PM, Mike Pepper wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Wayne Godfrey
Sent: 13 May 2005 01:13
For some dumb reason, IE wants to
drop my text way down on the background image instead putting it at
the
top as the other browsers do.
Your width is a little wide -
#main #homer {
display: block;
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
width: 390px;
z-index: 20;
}
Make is a tad less and it'll be fine.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Pepper
Accessible Web Developer
Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst
http://www.seowebsitepromotion.com
Administrator
Guild of Accessible Web Designers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gawds.org
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
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] IE won't play
The 380px worked for the top h1 but now IE is centering the h2 text
underneath, even though the CSS says align left. Getting there, but why
is IE doing this?
w
Wayne Godfrey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 12, 2005, at 9:05 PM, Ben Crothers wrote:
...or width: 380px; ...?
Ben Crothers
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Pepper
Sent: Friday, 13 May 2005 10:48 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] IE won't play
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Wayne Godfrey
Sent: 13 May 2005 01:13
For some dumb reason, IE wants to
drop my text way down on the background image instead putting it at
the top as the other browsers do.
Your width is a little wide -
#main #homer {
display: block;
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
width: 390px;
z-index: 20;
}
Make is a tad less and it'll be fine.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Pepper
Accessible Web Developer
Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst
http://www.seowebsitepromotion.com
Administrator
Guild of Accessible Web Designers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gawds.org
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
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] double space after period
This whole thing is one of my pet peeves so take my harsh criticism of it with a grain of salt please. :) I agree wholeheartedly, one of my pet peeves as well, especially after battling it through the early days of desktop publishing in the 80s. This isn't a matter of grammar or standards, it's a matter of correct use of punctuation. With the thought process that's being put forth here, would you also put double spaces before and after an em dash? What about commas, quote marks, and all other forms of punctuation? Why not just put spaces between each and every letter as well? I'm sorry, it is incorrect and no amount of accessibility will ever make me change my mind. I too dislike being harsh, but I thought this was a dead issue somewhere around the late 80s... Wayne -- Wayne Godfrey President, Creative Director Outgate Media, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ** 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] More with the link bullets
Paul, I just checked your layout in IE 5.1.7 Mac (OS 9), on Firefox (OSX). Both of them look the same and fine. If you'd like a screen shot, I'll send them off list, just give me an email address. The page is coming along nicely. Wayne -- Wayne Godfrey President, Creative Director Outgate Media, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ** 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] Re: MSN redesign
Actually, it's kind of ironic that they would even consider trying to use standards when those very standards are so poorly executed on their own product(s). Maybe there's hope...I just won't hold my breath. I'm sure after this experience, they'll add a few of their own new standards buried deep in the OS, just like they always do. No sense in playing fair now... wayne -- Wayne Godfrey President, Creative Director Outgate Media, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ** 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] IE5 Mac Still choking
Tom, It's borking on the margin style declaration ( margin:-28px 0px 10px 295px;) in this image tag: a href=locationmap.cfmimg src=../images/locationmap_button.gif alt=Link to Location Map width=96 height=20 border=0 style=padding:0; margin:-28px 0px 10px 295px; //a It's doing the same here on IE 5.1.7. w -- Wayne Godfrey President, Creative Director Outgate Media, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ** 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] double space after period
I'm simply wondering about the grammatically-correct double space after a period. For years, it's never mattered to me, but I have a client who is a stickler for this sort of thing, and he asked if I could please add the extra spaces in his site. It may or may not be grammatically correct, depending on your semantics, but it is pure and simply wrong. Is your client writing a term paper on a typewriter or publishing a web site, book or magazine? The double space issue is and should be a dead one. This issue plagued the desktop world many moons ago. I know, I've been doing magazines and books for over thirty years. These days no managing- or copy-editor worth their salt would ever allow such spacing. It is incorrect and should be treated that way. Look at any book, magazine or published piece, there are no double spaced periods, period. An old world thought that refuse to die... w -- Wayne Godfrey President, Creative Director Outgate Media, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ** 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] Help - newbie
On 1/19/05 3:55 PM, Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have always recommended not using an editor, learn it manually, then perhaps use one for shortcuts. Reliance on html editors and such isn't a good idea. That will go a long way toward learning on your own, without being limited by some software. Notetab or notepad is fine. I couldn't agree more. I learned this way and it is the best teacher I've ever had (next to the WSG list). I had templates to work with in the early days and I couldn't understand anything other than how to replace text. You'll make mistakes and beat your head against the wall at times, but it's the BEST way to learn. Once you start feeling comfortable, you'll be able to open any source code and start tearing it apart to figure out how something was accomplished. Learn the basics...it'll go a long way. w -- Wayne Godfrey President, Creative Director Outgate Media, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ** 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] Conditional comments
I'm pushing transparency to IE this way:
#logo {
background: url('img/logo.png') no-repeat;
}
* html #logo {
background: none;
filter:
progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src='img/logo.png',sizingMe
thod='scale');
}
Does this really work on IE? Can I really use transparency in my PNG-24 and
have IE display it? Or is there some hidden catch?
w
--
Wayne Godfrey
President, Creative Director
Outgate Media, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
**
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] Conditional comments
On 1/19/05 6:42 PM, Kornel Lesinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this really work on IE? Can I really use transparency in my PNG-24 and have IE display it? Or is there some hidden catch? There are several catches. http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/notes/#PNG Okay, this is a logo with some transparency drop shadows (in black) that sits atop my background header image. The logo is my clickable link back to home and is 325px wide by 90px. It worked decently everywhere except IE/win. I ended up rebuilding the header since I didn't want to mess with hacks, java scripts etc. If this would work, it would make my life a lot easier. w -- Wayne Godfrey President, Creative Director Outgate Media, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ** 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] A question of semantics
Hi gang! You all must have heard my head banging over the last couple of days! The semantic form that I got from Patrick works great when it's got room, the problem is, I don't have that much room. This is a small 200px wide quick search form that needs a bit of padding. If you add divs to the input fields, won't that effect the fieldset? Or am I missing something here? I've been avoiding this form thing like the plague, but I've got no choice now...gotta get it done. Wayne ** 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] A question of semantics
Help!! I am in the process of building what amounts to a search form that will extract a club listing from my database. Before I start the building process, I'd like to know what would be considered the most semantically correct way of doing it. The form will display a club listing by state via a pull-down menu or text input and has the following fields: Title: Search Club Listings Text input field for club name search Pull-down menu of states search List button (submit) I tried to followed last week's discussion on the semantics of tables, etc. in forms hoping it would give me some insight, but I think I got too lost in semantics to fully understand. Should this be a table, a DL or is there some other, better way to accomplish this input form? I want it right the first time, since there are other input forms that will use this general application elsewhere on the site as well. Any help will be greatly appreciated Wayne ** 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] A question of semantics
The simplicity of it all. Thanks Patrick, I doubt that I would have ever come up with this solution, which is why I posed the question in the first place!! Forms are mysterious creatures to meThanks again. wayne ** 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] Ids in body?
Is it possible to use two or more ids in the body of a page? I have a nav and a sub nav that I'd like to be able to light up. It seems I can use unlimited class elements, but I can't get more than one id to work at a time. Wayne ** 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] Ids in body?
On 1/14/05 9:26 PM, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By definition, an element can only have a single, unique id. Boy do I feel dumb... w ** 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] Positioning: A Better Way?
Hi, everyone, I have a a main navigation menu (ul) positioned as absolute. It works fine as is, but I need to add a sub navigation under it. Every time I try, the sub nav ends up not falling in place. The sub nav will be another ul and is not currently on my page. What I'm wondering is there a better way to position the main nav so that the sub nav can then just fall into place underneath? The only real kicker here is that the background image in the header contains the bar that the main nav ul sits on, so position is critical. The particulars: Page: http://vtest.jrations.com/about2_v2.php CSS: http://www.jrations.com/css/main.css Any help will be greatly appreciated, as I seem to be having one of those brain-dead days...arrggg!! Wayne -- Wayne Godfrey President, Creative Director Outgate Media, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ** 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] Conditional comments
Don't double your code. Using apache mod_rewrite and PHP you can make all PNG 'files' to actually contain GIF, if requested by explorer. See: http://osiolki.net/i/ossredni Kornel: Ok, I'm not great with PHP, but if there are some instructions somewhere, I'm sure I could figure it...I think!! Patrick: I'm going to go see what you have up your sleeve and I'll get back to you later...I always like weird! Thanks, Wayne -- Wayne Godfrey President, Creative Director Outgate Media, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ** 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] Slightly OT... Interview with IE Dev team
Naturally they want to develop a better product, Oh really? That's a laugh. All Microsoft is interested in is sticking a very large hose directly into your wallet to suck as much cash out as possible. This is the 8000-pound gorilla who believes in web standards as long as those standards are theirs. In fact, that's the corporate philosophy across the board and now they're heading into your living room! Can't wait to see what havoc they reek there. As the other posts have said, they've had ample opportunity and time to get things right, where are we now? Hacks and java scripts... Wayne -- Wayne Godfrey President, Creative Director Outgate Media, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ** 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] Site Review: e-oddie.com
Well, at least you're not telling me about how painful it is to be on this really old Mac anymore. Not sure what you're trying to accomplish with the lead page, but it isn't centered in my browser, and has a vertical scroll bar to boot. Sydney Life is also broken. Again this is IE for the Mac, so you probably don't care about me anyway, since that seems to be the general consensus of the web these days...whine... Really old Mac OS 9.2.2/IE 5.1.7 Wayne ** 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] Re: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org (Out of office )
I am on holiday !! Back on the 10th of Jan. Contact Adrienne Foley for urgent stuff. __ This message contains information, which is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately (Phone 0800 665 463 or [EMAIL PROTECTED]) and destroy the original message. LINZ accepts no responsibility for changes to this email, or for any attachments, after its transmission from LINZ. Thank you. __ ** 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] Checking in as many browsers as possible
Ag!! Am I having Firefox problems because the latest Netscape is also on my Mac OSX (Panther) as well? The latest version of Firefox has been acting strangely ever since I installed Netscape (or thereabouts). I can't seem to quit Firefox without it remaining in the menu and is unusable without a reboot (I also get no force quit option on the dock) . It also, quite often, doesn't load any page on startup, though it is suppose to. If this is OT, I am sorry, but this has been driving me batty for a couple of weeks. I've searched for answers, but can't seem to find any. Any thoughts out there would be greatly appreciated. Wayne Godfrey Outgate Media, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] Code or Markup
code - something I know is there, that makes things work, that I don't understand and am paying you to deal with markup - What, you mean like price markup or what? Gotta agree with Jonathan, markup in the agency business is what the client is going to get charged above and beyond. They may not understand code, but they do understand markup, as costing more... w ** 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] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
I find your take on all this very interesting as it is my mindset to try and find the happy medium that you seemingly are now accomplishing. I was wondering if you can give links to some of your sites and/or to some of the discussions on css-d. IMHO your approach to throwing IE5/IE6 to the dogs (so to speak) makes sense, though I'd prefer that those browsers were used by or preferably eaten entirely by the dogs. Enjoy your upcoming Mac, I know you will. wayne ** 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] video standards?
Within QuickTime there are are many codecs available, including AVI, MPEGs 1 2 and MPEG 4, etc. This is what I've found (the hard way) when dealing with video: AVI is an old MS codec that they haven't supported in years that thrill Windows users because of the small file sizes. IMHO, the quality is terrible. Windows Media player is available for both Mac OS 9 and OSX and some of us Mac users secretly harbor this player, although we never display it on our hard drives! As Terrence said, the size issue is great, the quality can be good, if you know what you're doing. I've used QuickTime Pro and MPEG 4 with the most success with both audio and video across platforms. The sizes aren't bad, but it does require the user to have the latest QT 6 plug-in. Either format would work with some experimentation. As far as Linux is concerned, I haven't a clue. I don't know about the sleaze factor of Real, but I do know that special plug-ins are required in order to convert to Real. Besides, the Real interface is, let's face it, real bad... Flash is an alternative, but will require someone with a very good understanding of how to use the program as it can be a slow and tedious process. I've mixed QT with Flash for some good results. So much depends on what exactly is involved in the small video. If you're talking just video or audio/video and/or special effects etc. There is no easy, simple answer without knowing what exactly you need. And even then, there is no easy answer. Wayne Godfrey President, Creative Director Outgate Media, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] Font-size issue on Mac
On 11/10/04 6:38 PM, Kenneth Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to convert a site ( laid out with tables and using points and
pixels for font-sizing ) into full Web Standards.
The old home page is at http://www.weedsbluemountains.org.au/index.htm
This uses tables and absolute font sizes.
The rebuilt home page is at http://www.weedsbluemountains.org.au/default.htm
This uses CSS for layout and relative font sizes.
I'm very pleased with the conversion which displays perfectly in IE6, Firefox
0.8 and Opera 7.23 on Windows as well as (reportedly) in both Safari and
Internet Explorer on a Mac. Picture my horror, though, when the site's
author
reported not being able to read the main navigation menu, a side menu on
another upgraded page and image captions on that other upgraded page, all
because the font-size was far too small.
I'd set the general style sheet's body font-size to 76% and used various
relative font-sizes to style individual text. Why does it work on every
browser I can find except the author's ???
Now I've had to reinstate the old non-standards home page so its author can
read the main menu. Under the new design, she had to re-set her IE browser on
an Emac to 120% before she could read it !!
Seeking an answer I found on The Noodle Incident the following exposition of
browsers delivering various font-size settings. I guess it's familiar to CSS
gurus:
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/font/browser.html
I simply cound not find any solution there to satisfy the need to set a
suitable font-size for the main menu that would display adequately on the
author's Emac.
I've been reading the transcripts of Web Essentials 04 and after going
through
Bruce Maguire's presentation, I'm even more desperate to get the site to W3C
accessibility level 1 - it MUST use relative not absolute font-sizing, right
?!!
Now to the crunch line - I happened to use the Australian Business Register
web site this morning http://www.abr.gov.au and thought I'd check out its
stylesheet - no stylesheet on the home page, but a JavaScript browser
sniffer.
Then I went to the help page
http://www.help.abr.gov.au/default.asp?usertype=BC and looked for its
stylesheet http://www.help.abr.gov.au/css/ABRHelp.css where every size is
absolute - either points or pixels- and tables for layout.
I thought Australian Government sites were supposed to observe Web
Accessibility standards - or have I got it all wrong?
I'm still trying to find a way to re-code my upgraded page
http://www.weedsbluemountains.org.au/default.htm to display adequately in its
author's browser. Looks like we'll have to truncate the main navigation menu
to do it.
Perhaps someone out there has a solution to this font-sizing hell I've
entered
by upgrading the site. The author also reports the same problem on a
Macromedia site she visited. The author is using an appropriate IE for her
Emac.
Thanks to the many on this list whose experience has proved invaluable to me
in the past 12 months.
Best regards
John Penlington
I've been doing this lately, and it seems to work quite consistently across
browsers and platforms.
body {font-size: 62.5%;} Sets base font size to 10px (because 62.5% of 16px
[default browser font size] = 10px)
Then, I do this for example,
#content {font-size: 1.3em;} Sets base font size for Content Div to 13px
(because 1.3 x 10=13)
Now 1.3em=13px, 1.7em=17px -- very easy to see exactly what the font size
is in pixels, while retaining relative sizing.
Just be careful about inheriting font sizes if you put a font in a container
that has a master font size other than 62.5%.
Regards,
Kenneth Feldman
Okay, the above is a real interesting way of thinking, but I have a feeling
the problem lies within the author's eMac. So, before changing any code, you
may need to see if the problem is a local one. Your site looks fine on a
very old G3 running OS 9.2.2/IE 5.1.7 and on my G4 OSX IE 5.2. Check the
author's preferences first.
w
**
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] Image links display hover
Arrrg!! Two steps forward, then ten backward! Why do my image links display
a hover (dotted line underneath) when I've created the class:
img {
border: none;
{
The particulars, CSS:
http://www.jrations.com/css/main.css
The XHTML file:
http://vtest.jrations.com/jwebtest_v2.php
Everything is validating. I am building and learning (in small steps) at the
same time and everything was going so well until I applied a link to an
image. What dumb thing have I missed or worse, not learned?
Thanks in advance for any help, I have so enjoyed al the banter of the group
and more importantly all the great info provided.
wayne
**
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] Dotted line.
Actually, you are correct, but why? The images aren't a part of the dl,
dt or dd so why does that effect them? I changed the border-bottom to
5px and sure enough I got a five-px big dotted line! I'm just not sure of
why the images are effected...
None of the img a:hover thoughts work, I've tried them all.
This is what is giving the dotted line...
dt a:hover {
border-bottom: 1px #FFCC00 dotted;
}
**
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] Dotted line.
Thanks for everyone's help. After messing around with the order of the CSS
and eliminating the the global links, I finally got the page to behave.
Well, at least 'till my next batch of code! One small step...one step at a
time...
On 10/22/04 5:35 PM, Anton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The attributes seem swapped to me, it should go {size | type | color}.
You can also shorten the color to three letters to replace the double sets,
like
so:
dt a:hover {
border-bottom: 1px dotted #FC0;
}
Quoting Bennie Shepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is what is giving the dotted line...
dt a:hover {
border-bottom: 1px #FFCC00 dotted;
}
--
Get Firefox Browser
http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesamp;id=6908amp;t=58
Bennie's MIDI Page
http://bennieshepherd.com/
Athens, Georgia, Relay For Life
http://www.athensrelay.net/
Montrose, Colorado, Relay For Life
http://montroserelay.com/
Grand Junction, Colorado, Relay For Life
http://grandjunctionrelay.org
LZ Friendly Veterans Org
http://lzfriendly.org
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
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] Ooh, Pretty Green!!!
Wow, they changed the color?
I always got the shakes when it seemed like it was taking too long...I'd get
this big lump in my throat and immediately start thinking about what could
possibly be wrong! At least to this point, my biggest problems have been my
really lousy typing...ok, so myh spelink stinks 2.
On 10/7/04 7:33 PM, Shane Helm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ooh, Pretty Green!!!
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
The red validation always made my subconscious think something was
wrong; although it said Congratulations!. The aqua green is much
nicer!
Sorry. Just had to comment on it. This was my first time to see the
green Congratulations! in the CSS Validator.
Best,
Shane Helm
{ sonzeDesignStudio
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
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] thoughts of external links in new window?
Okay, I'll stick my neck out here for a list chopping. I personally like opening a new window whenever I'm web surfing. It's something that I got into a habit or doing long ago and far away. I'm still waiting for a big, honking G5 to be sitting under my fingertips, but until that day I'm stuck on a G3 Mac at OS9 on IE5.1.7. I hate the IE interface (actually, I hate all browser interfaces) and I close it down to nothing but the address bar. The back, forward, stop and reload buttons are available in the top left hand corner, but the only one I really use is the reload button. Even with the tab browsers that I've tried, I still end up opening a new tab more often than using the back and forward buttons. This is just the way I ended up traveling the web, I'm sure that others have their own ways as well. I've discussed this with my partners and others and they all like the open a new window concept. I fully understand the other point of view and why the W3C believes what they believe. I've never been ticked off by a site opening a link in a new window, but I sure as heck have been royally unhappy with pop-up, under and through windows as well as poorly coded java script that freeze my machine or web sites that only work in IE for windows. In fact, those are much higher sins (IMHO) than opening a link in a new window... gulp On 10/5/04 7:19 PM, Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a whole plethora of points against opening new windows... I am really curious as to what your usability team, or anybody else, see as the benfits of opening new windows. ./tdw john wrote: Some of my usability team are telling me that they prefer to have external links going into a new browser window. I can see why some would like that, but I can also see why others would frown on it. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] thoughts of external links in new window?
That's the point that needs to be made. Until the recent push to standards and usability, everyone was just doing what was considered the norm. This journey into standards and accessibility is completely new to me and many others. BUT, there is still a stronghold of folks who think in tables, pop-up windows and bad code. The real challenge for me has been less in the changing of my code and more in the changing of my mind. The standards mode has made me think differently. I never even considered accessibility until I read Zeldman, Cederholm, Myers and the rest. My battle is not here, but with my partners, as I have a site full of links opening in new windows. Arrrg!! Now I have to change their minds and ways! The irony is, that version 2 of our site that currently validates in XHTML Transitional, will actually be ready to go before the tables version 1 is even finished! And that's what I love about the standards process. BTW, I was a little hesitant to join this list, but am I ever glad I did. I've gotten more answers and info in a week and a half than I could have ever imagined. AND the topper, is you all are great people as well. Many, many thanks to everyone out there. w On 10/5/04 8:17 PM, Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Wayne, appreciate the risk ;-) What you are describing though is your personal preference for opening new windows - which I am all in favour for. I prefer tabbed window browsers myself and open alot of tabs - and therein lies my point. Opening my own windows suits me and my workflow for the variety of computers I work on. Having someone else do it is annoying, distruptive, and rude. But I will change my opinion if there is good reason to... especially one related to usability. ./tdw On 6/10/04 12:58 PM, Wayne Godfrey wrote: Okay, I'll stick my neck out here for a list chopping. I personally like opening a new window whenever I'm web surfing. It's something that I got into a habit or doing long ago and far away. I'm still waiting for a big, honking G5 to be sitting under my fingertips, but until that day I'm stuck on a G3 Mac at OS9 on IE5.1.7. I hate the IE interface (actually, I hate all browser interfaces) and I close it down to nothing but the address bar. The back, forward, stop and reload buttons are available in the top left hand corner, but the only one I really use is the reload button. Even with the tab browsers that I've tried, I still end up opening a new tab more often than using the back and forward buttons. This is just the way I ended up traveling the web, I'm sure that others have their own ways as well. I've discussed this with my partners and others and they all like the open a new window concept. I fully understand the other point of view and why the W3C believes what they believe. I've never been ticked off by a site opening a link in a new window, but I sure as heck have been royally unhappy with pop-up, under and through windows as well as poorly coded java script that freeze my machine or web sites that only work in IE for windows. In fact, those are much higher sins (IMHO) than opening a link in a new window... gulp ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] PNGs and IE windows
Patrick, Thank you for the both links and the explanation of PNGs. I got a bit overwhelmed in reading the link info and forgot my manners, so please forgive me, but I do thank you for the info, it's been a great help. Again, Thanks, wayne On 9/29/04 7:52 PM, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Futter wrote: My understanding is that while IE Win supports the display of PNG files, it doesn't support any of their transparency features. If you want to use transparency for images in a cross-browser safe way, GIF is really your only option. I wouldn't be holding my breath for IE to catch up either ... PNG-8 works fine (1 bit transparency, like GIF) in IE. It's PNG-24 (8 bit transparency) that IE struggles to understand, but there are tricks that can be used http://www.alistapart.com/articles/pngopacity/ Depending on your needs, you can also just use a PNG-8 and then replace it with a PNG-24 in capable browsers (either via javascript or purely via CSS, e.g. http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/19/ ) Patrick _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] PNGs and IE windows
Could someone please explain what I can and can't do with a PNG image in IE Windows? I have a logo with a soft drop shadow that works everywhere except IE Win. In IE, there is a gray box that where the transparency should be. So I tried one with a solid drop shadow and the transparent part of the PNG still shows gray. I've read that I can't use alpha transparencies with IE, but I'm not sure how IE defines alpha transparencies. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks to this list, I've had three or four questions answered without ever asking, in the four days I've been a part. I only wish I felt more able to answer some questions myself... Wayne Godfrey ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] No background image in Firefox
This is my second real try at CSS and XHTML so bear with me! I thought I had it nailed, but noo... The page works in Safari, IE 5.2, 5.1 and Opera 6.03 all on a Mac both OS x and OS 9, but Firefox says no go. Firefox will not load my background image nor the logo at the bottom. The XHTML validates, what's my problem? All the code is in the source, any help will be greatly appreciated. This is currently a page holder while I race the clock to rebuild the table miss-mash that already exists. The example page is at http://www.jrations.com/ In advance, Thanks. Wayne Godfrey ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] No background image in Firefox
Hey Bert, I don't think I've disabled images, but I don't use Firefox very much since it's on my wife's machine. Where would I look to find out? It almost sounds that like that's the problem. It loads fine for you?? Hope I'm not going to be feeling like a total idiot, but I've loaded other test pages from the local drive and the images did appear. wayne On 9/24/04 10:42 PM, Bert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: G'day Loads fine for me in Firefox 1.0PR. You haven't disabled images in Firefox (through the web developer toolbar) by chance? Regards -- Bert Doorn, Web Developer Better Web Design - www.bwdzine.com Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
