RE: [WSG] Standards, SPAM, and accessibility - three hot topics all in one
On Sun, 16 May 2004, theGrafixGuy wrote: > (the web is not the (Internet) Yes that was correct. > > You are CORRECT in that, the Internet is a part of the web. However, > RESPECTFULLY, you sir are completely INCORRECT in the claim that SPAM is NOT > on topic. To say so would be like claiming the tail is not part of the cat > and therefore should be ignored. The Internet is _not_ part of the web. The web is part of the internet. > To define - let us go to look up the terms. > > The "Internet" is the largest internet and is composed of backbone networks, > mid-level networks and stub networks. (source: dictionary.com) > > The World Wide Web, commonly referred to as the "web", primarily in the form > of html and http is the most commonly known aspect of the Internet. However, > the World Wide Web consists of a wide array of protocols and communications > standards that range far beyond http and include EVERYTHING from internet to > FTP, Gopher, Telnet, news as well as via the http protocol to transfer > hypertext documents. (source: dictionary.com ) None of those are for email. > e-mail - A system for sending and receiving messages electronically over a > computer network, as between personal computers. And also: A message or > messages sent or received by such a system. (source: dictionary.com ) Definately not an http protocol. > > The group is the WEB Standards Group - correct? "Web" equals WORLD WIDE WEB. > And the definitions are above - The group is NOT called the Internet > Standards Group, nor is it called the http standards group, By the Group's > own name, it leads itself to a broad category covering accessibility and > many many other issues regarding use and design of the Internet as well as > FTP, Telnet and so on. Yes it is the Web Standards Group and not an email standards group, that is a different protocol. At this point I realised you need to do some serious research on how all these protocols fit together to make up the Internet. > > As we are dealing in semantics here, (which is the norm as CSS is very > semantic is it not?), the proper statement should have been that SPAM is not > a preferred topic rather than an OFF-TOPIC matter) Off topic would > incorrectly imply that SPAM is not e-mail and e-mail is not part of the Web > which is a HUGE network. Spam is an abuse of email. The point you seem to missunderstand, and need to research is that email is not part of the web it is a part of the internet. The web is also part of the internet > > Just like coding in CSS and HTML, it's all a matter of definition (You can't > use an tag to add properties to text! And by strict definition the > subject is on topic. I however will digress and accept that it is not a > preferred topic of discussion. As email/spam is not part of the web it is definately off topic. You are in fact suggesting that any topic related to the internet should be on topic, which means, according to your wishes, everything is on topic. Now lets drop this and get back to web standards. -- Regards, | Lions District 201 Q3 Rob Unsworth | IT & Internet Chairman Ipswich, Australia| http://www.lionsq3.asn.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 *
RE: [WSG] Standards, SPAM, and accessibility - three hot topics all in one
(the web is not the (Internet) You are CORRECT in that, the Internet is a part of the web. However, RESPECTFULLY, you sir are completely INCORRECT in the claim that SPAM is NOT on topic. To say so would be like claiming the tail is not part of the cat and therefore should be ignored. To define - let us go to look up the terms. The "Internet" is the largest internet and is composed of backbone networks, mid-level networks and stub networks. (source: dictionary.com) The World Wide Web, commonly referred to as the "web", primarily in the form of html and http is the most commonly known aspect of the Internet. However, the World Wide Web consists of a wide array of protocols and communications standards that range far beyond http and include EVERYTHING from internet to FTP, Gopher, Telnet, news as well as via the http protocol to transfer hypertext documents. (source: dictionary.com ) e-mail - A system for sending and receiving messages electronically over a computer network, as between personal computers. And also: A message or messages sent or received by such a system. (source: dictionary.com ) The group is the WEB Standards Group - correct? "Web" equals WORLD WIDE WEB. And the definitions are above - The group is NOT called the Internet Standards Group, nor is it called the http standards group, By the Group's own name, it leads itself to a broad category covering accessibility and many many other issues regarding use and design of the Internet as well as FTP, Telnet and so on. As we are dealing in semantics here, (which is the norm as CSS is very semantic is it not?), the proper statement should have been that SPAM is not a preferred topic rather than an OFF-TOPIC matter) Off topic would incorrectly imply that SPAM is not e-mail and e-mail is not part of the Web which is a HUGE network. Just like coding in CSS and HTML, it's all a matter of definition (You can't use an tag to add properties to text! And by strict definition the subject is on topic. I however will digress and accept that it is not a preferred topic of discussion. Brian Grimmer theGrafixGuy http://www.thegrafixguy.com 503-887-4943 925-226-4085 (fax) This reply to your initial e-mail is sent in accordance with the US CAN-SPAM Law in effect 01/01/2004. Removal requests can be sent to this address and will be honored and respected. -Original Message- From: James Ellis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 4:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Standards, SPAM, and accessibility - three hot topics all in one No, the various anti-spam laws, solutions etc aren't a W3c standard and spam problems/solutions aren't solely web based (the web is not the Internet). The discussion on spam and the relevant governing laws of a country (which don't apply outside of that country) should be directed at a dedicated anti-spam list, the lawmakers or an anti-spam support group, rather than here. So, yes, the spam topic raised is closed on this list. HTH James >And relating to the previous subject being active, yes this in on-topic but >perhaps waver on the edge in regards to the SPAM issue if one does not >consider the new laws in effect as a sort of web standard for communication. >I apologize in advance for this. > > * 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, SPAM, and accessibility - three hot topics all in one
No, the various anti-spam laws, solutions etc aren't a W3c standard and spam problems/solutions aren't solely web based (the web is not the Internet). The discussion on spam and the relevant governing laws of a country (which don't apply outside of that country) should be directed at a dedicated anti-spam list, the lawmakers or an anti-spam support group, rather than here. So, yes, the spam topic raised is closed on this list. HTH James And relating to the previous subject being active, yes this in on-topic but perhaps waver on the edge in regards to the SPAM issue if one does not consider the new laws in effect as a sort of web standard for communication. I apologize in advance for this. * 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, SPAM, and accessibility - three hot topics all in one
If you got a server-side language you can then use regular expressions to check the tags and correct them. Taco Fleur Tell me and I will forget Show me and I will remember Teach me and I will learn > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Zeltner > Sent: Sunday, 16 May 2004 7:49 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [WSG] Standards, SPAM, and accessibility - three > hot topics all in one > > > Am 16.05.2004 um 11:06 schrieb theGrafixGuy: > > > First we have standards - pretty easy sell - build the site > right and > > it will display as intended. Does this mean that his staff > webmaster > > HAS to learn XHTML or CSS or is there a way to be standards > compliant > > and use html only with the PROPER use of tags? > > you could use a content management system and a wysiwyg > editor that has > standard compliant output. > > or you teach that guy that he's got to close tags like the break with > . and if you build the css of the site flexible enough so they > only have to reuse some classes/ids then they wouldn't really need to > learn css, just a little bit of xhtml not to screw things up. > > regards, michael > -- > Michael Zeltner > Netalley Networks LLP > http://www.netalleynetworks.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] Standards, SPAM, and accessibility - three hot topics all in one
Am 16.05.2004 um 11:06 schrieb theGrafixGuy: First we have standards - pretty easy sell - build the site right and it will display as intended. Does this mean that his staff webmaster HAS to learn XHTML or CSS or is there a way to be standards compliant and use html only with the PROPER use of tags? you could use a content management system and a wysiwyg editor that has standard compliant output. or you teach that guy that he's got to close tags like the break with . and if you build the css of the site flexible enough so they only have to reuse some classes/ids then they wouldn't really need to learn css, just a little bit of xhtml not to screw things up. regards, michael -- Michael Zeltner Netalley Networks LLP http://www.netalleynetworks.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] Standards, SPAM, and accessibility - three hot topics all in one
I need to add, this, the sig file below is my experimentation in regards to compliance for the SPAM. And no, it isn't a license to SPAM by any means, but does it provide the required data to be in compliance with the law? Brian Grimmer theGrafixGuy http://www.thegrafixguy.com 503-887-4943 925-226-4085 (fax) This reply to your initial e-mail is sent in accordance with the US CAN-SPAM Law in effect 01/01/2004. Removal requests can be sent to this address and will be honored and respected. PS - If initiated by me: this is the difference: This e-mail is sent in accordance with the US CAN-SPAM Law in effect 01/01/2004. Removal requests can be sent to this address and will be honored and respected. * 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] Standards, SPAM, and accessibility - three hot topics all in one
A client today asked a very valid question to me about web standards, SPAM and accessibility - I had to think on it and said I'd get back to him on it. Let's look at this issue by issue, but first let me set the stage so to speak. This is a US Company based in Oregon and has clients across the world. He has a current web presence and while acceptable in IE and Moz, he'd like the site design updated to reflect the new technologies available. First we have standards - pretty easy sell - build the site right and it will display as intended. Does this mean that his staff webmaster HAS to learn XHTML or CSS or is there a way to be standards compliant and use html only with the PROPER use of tags? Next we have SPAM - sore subject for everyone I know - however there are legitimate reasons to send an UNSOLICITED e-mail: Perhaps due to a referral from an existing client for example. Additionally, under current US Law which pre-empts the existing state laws which in some cases were stricter than the New Federal CAN-SPAM law that went into effect on Jan.1, 2004, which merely requires that the e-mail be truthful in its content and be honest in its presentation and header information - must be from the person it claims to be and contact information must be valid - for a legitimate business, this is not an issue - but the question is - How should one state that at the foot of an e-mail message? Lastly, accessibility - while it would be optimal to be able to provide level of quality presentation to ALL, browser limitations prevent that. So the question arises - how far should one really go in a business site? Does one really need to use all the tools needed to attain WAI AAA certification for the average small business? Being a US-based business with Federal contracts, the client has no problem attaining Section 508 conformance but is confused regarding the more stringent and demanding rules regarding the WAI as well as EU/UK/Australian laws. To be honest, I couldn't answer everything via research and so that is the reason for the post. And relating to the previous subject being active, yes this in on-topic but perhaps waver on the edge in regards to the SPAM issue if one does not consider the new laws in effect as a sort of web standard for communication. I apologize in advance for this. Sincerely, Brian Grimmer theGrafixGuy http://www.thegrafixguy.com 503-887-4943 925-226-4085 (fax) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
