Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

On 09/02/2007, at 4:14 PM, Geoff Pack wrote: So Joe Blogs is meaningless with out a spec to tell me that 'name' means a name, while [EMAIL PROTECTED]&* is meaningful if a spec says so? Absolutely correct. To a computer, any given string of characters holds exactly the same amount of mea

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Geoff Pack wrote: So Joe Blogs is meaningless with out a spec to tell me that 'name' means a name, while [EMAIL PROTECTED]&* is meaningful if a spec says so? Essentially, yes. Although, there's no rule to say it has to be a formal specification (technically it doesn't even have to be written

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Lachlan Hunt wrote: Semantics only become useful when there are tools that make use of them in a useful way. On 2/8/07, Geoff Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So Joe Blogs is meaningless with out a spec to tell me that 'name' means a name, while [EMAIL PROTECTED]&* is meaningful if a spec says

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

On 2/9/07, Geoff Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lachlan Hunt wrote: > No, the semantics come from its definition, not its tag name. If a spec > defines an element with the tag name to be for marking up > a person's name, then that's what it is. The tag name is just an opaque > string that do

RE: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Lachlan Hunt wrote: > No, the semantics come from its definition, not its tag name. If a spec > defines an element with the tag name to be for marking up > a person's name, then that's what it is. The tag name is just an opaque > string that doesn't affect the semantics in any way. It just

Re: [WSG] New nineMSN website does not validate!

With so many validation errors it does not merit anymore time to look at it. Twice as bad as their last site! An advance up to 691 HTML errors http://validator.w3.org/check? uri=http%3A%2F%2Fbeta.ninemsn.com.au%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically% 29&doctype=Inline The old site only 300 vali

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Geoff Pack wrote: David Dorward wrote: No, since HTML expresses known semantics and random-XML doesn't. Surely the semantic meaning is in the actual tag names, not just the fact that they are standardised. It shouldn't matter as long as it's understandable. Anyway, you can always re-use as m

Re: [WSG] New nineMSN website does not validate!

viewed any random page and I came to this http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=225480 this is almost impossible to view and read on firefox >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/02/2007 2:01:07 pm >>> [Now that I have your attention] Ninemsn have a new website, currently in beta, demo it here: ht

Re: [WSG] Setting input heights in Safari

Try padding, John? Maybe that'll pump up the height. Mike Cherim http://green-beast.com - Original Message - From: "John Faulds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:20 PM Subject: [WSG] Setting input heights in Safari Does anyone know of any workarounds for

[WSG] New nineMSN website does not validate!

[Now that I have your attention] Ninemsn have a new website, currently in beta, demo it here: http://beta.ninemsn.com.au/ I like it, big improvement. You have come a long way nineMSN - congrats to design/development team. The positives: - easy on the eye, with a focus on information rather tha

[WSG] Setting input heights in Safari

Does anyone know of any workarounds for Safari not accepting height on text inputs? I've already tried setting the font-size, but to get the input to the right height, my text is going to need to be unfeasibly large. -- Tyssen Design Web & print design services www.tyssendesign.com.au Ph: (

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

On 09/02/2007, at 2:01 PM, Geoff Pack wrote: David Dorward wrote: Geoff Pack wrote: Yes, for now. But wouldn't it be easier for all us if the browsers just improved their handling of xml, instead of worrying about html5 and xhtml2? No, since HTML expresses known semantics and random-X

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

On 2/8/07, Geoff Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm not an expert at any of this, btw. What do XHTML2 and HTML5 give us that we can't do with XML and CSS? Corporate support, to a degree. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net .. designtocss.com

RE: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

David Dorward wrote: > Geoff Pack wrote: > > Yes, for now. But wouldn't it be easier for all us if the browsers > > just improved their handling of xml, instead of worrying about html5 > > and xhtml2? > No, since HTML expresses known semantics and random-XML doesn't. Surely the semantic mea

RE: [WSG] Keyboard accessible DHMTL navigation

> You might like to check out a roundup I did of dropdown menus > with comments made on their accessibility etc.: > > http://www.tyssendesign.com.au/articles/css/dropdown-low-down/ > That's a great summary, John. FWIW, I use Infinite Menus. The issue of opening new windows when tabbing to subm

RE: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

That is very helpful, Moira. Kat's original query was: > If the glyph for No. (as outlined in Wikipedia: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No.) is used, should this be in an > abbreviation element to explain it? It is an abbreviation, isn't it?? > > What do screen-readers make of this particular gly

Re: [WSG] Keyboard accessible DHMTL navigation

Yara, TABS seems to work OK for me on Netscape Mac version. Meta tags could provide a link to an accessibility statement giving keyboard shortcuts. Some Meta tags duplicated. I'm don't think that the javascript is necessary and what effect will it might have on accessibility or bots who wil

Re: [WSG] Keyboard accessible DHMTL navigation

Hi Yara, You might like to check out a roundup I did of dropdown menus with comments made on their accessibility etc.: http://www.tyssendesign.com.au/articles/css/dropdown-low-down/ On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:00:13 +1000, Yara Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, I am have a problem trying to

Re: [WSG] Setting focus and JAWS

Setting focus and JAWSRegarding accessible ajax, this is the best post I have found so far http://juicystudio.com/article/making-ajax-work-with-screen-readers.php If you find a solution to the problem please either send a reply to this list or leave a comment on the post. -- Brad - O

[WSG] Keyboard accessible DHMTL navigation

Hi, I am have a problem trying to make a DHTML navigation keyboard accessible. http://datasearch.uts.edu.au/site_manager_sites/dab2007/demo_index.html Currently this demo page http://datasearch.uts.edu.au/site_manager_sites/dab2007/demo_index.html sort of works when trying to tab to each of the

Re: [WSG] Not a Good Impression

Using firefox at work I do not get that warning message but just a site with the navigation out of line etc It does not seem like its the only SA gov website that lacks a bit. Recently I did a test on the tourism sites of the states of Australia and SA came up the worst then as well http://ger

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

1. Learn XSLT 2. Write a transformation for your markup into HTML 3. Serve your XML as application/xml and put a stylesheet directive in it people are dreaming ... when you have to deal with user-created content and unknown character sets (especially when you are trying to run a site cater

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 09:54:46AM +1100, Geoff Pack wrote: > Yes, for now. But wouldn't it be easier for all us if the browsers just > improved their handling of xml, instead of worrying about html5 and > xhtml2? No, since HTML expresses known semantics and random-XML doesn't. While you can styl

RE: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Nick Fitzsimons wrote: > On the other hand, browser support is fairly restricted and can > be buggy, especially if you plan to use any DOM Scripting/Ajax > type stuff. Well, yes, but it's a lot better than XHTML 2 support ;) > For real-world usage, you're better off doing the > transformat

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Appearing as: Para 1 end of para2 Start of Para 2... foo This is what CSS is for: http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200702/new_css_properties_in_safari/ Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ***

Re: [WSG] Coding for chinese audience

On Feb 8, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Tom Livingston wrote: Hi list, Please reply off-list as this is OT - but I am desperate (sorry list-dads/moms) My sincere apology - I really meant to send it to Tom. tee *** List Guidelines:

Re: [WSG] Coding for chinese audience

Tom, I have coded for Chinese HTML newslestter with UTF-8 using inline style sheet and maybe able to help out, let me know. GB 2312 and Big 5 have lots of unseenable issues that usually to do with users' email clients, especially yahoo, hotmail, msn and many bunch of Chinese webmail such

RE: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

> I'd still like to know if using character entity references > and/or unicode for symbols and special characters will > actually convey web content more clearly to people who use > screen readers. Sometimes, sometimes not. I have JAWS 6.1 and 7.0 installed - both know about some Unicode ch

[WSG] Coding for chinese audience

Due to email issues, i repost: Hi list, Please reply off-list as this is OT - but I am desperate (sorry list-dads/moms) Can anyone help me prepare for coding an HTML email for a Chinese audience? I have never done anything with Asian characters before. I am on a Mac using DW8 (code view). Any

RE: [WSG] slightly OT?: "Web 2.0 explained in a short, moving video"

While I'm sure everyone on this list is committed to accessibility, we are a minority, and I'm sure we all have our war stories of battles lost. But it improves bit by bit, both in terms of acceptance of the idea of accessibility, and the tools to make it happen. I agree with that, by and la

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

On 2/8/07, Dmitry Baranovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Actually in both cases you shouldn't use 'x', but × or × >> Good point. But will a screen reader find '×' and say >> 'times', or for >> that matter Andrew's unicode alternatives? > > There's a key question. Anyone got a screen reader h

Re: [WSG] CSS and non-standard properties

On 8 Feb 2007, at 19:15:07, Paul Bennett wrote: Hi all, I just noticed via Roger Johansson's blog[1] that the Safari team are building in non-standard CSS properties[2]. I know this is nothing new, as Firefox / Mozilla has it's non-standard CSS commands too (mainly for XUL development?)[3

[WSG] CSS and non-standard properties

Hi all, I just noticed via Roger Johansson's blog[1] that the Safari team are building in non-standard CSS properties[2]. I know this is nothing new, as Firefox / Mozilla has it's non-standard CSS commands too (mainly for XUL development?)[3] etc, but wonder what the motivation is. Isn't this t

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You must be drunk too, if you are agreeing with me! (Apparently.) The example that I was trying to describe went more like: Para 1 Start of Para 2 ... end of para 2 foo Appearing as: Para 1

RE: [WSG] option to open newwindow inside the link !!

If you feel able to give them a choice, then leave them with their normal choice, as it clearly _isn't _ essential to your application. Regards, Mike > -Original Message- > From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gaspar > Sent: Thursday, February 0

RE: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

> -Original Message- > From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Wilson > > The physical structure of a page will often be entirely > > different to the > > logical structure > > This is true, of course, but at the end of the day both versi

[WSG] option to open newwindow inside the link !!

Hello everyone, I know open new windows should be avoid, but sometimes we need that to to prevent confusion. Iam thinking in some way of warn and give the option in each link to the user chose or not to open in new window. Something like something⊕ and by javascript, if the user click on abbr

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

On 8 Feb 2007, at 15:49:00, Designer wrote: Forgive my complete lack of knowledge here, but can you (or someone) point me to details on where I can "just transform it into html 4.01 (or xhtml) in the browser"? It's a serious question - I'd love to code/markup in xml.

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Hi, On 2/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't have to read any dictionary or the spec to agree with you > Geoff. Structure in and of itself IS semantic to an extent. I think you are taking that too far - imagine trying to create the look of a newspaper on the web, wit

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:49:00PM +, Designer wrote: > Forgive my complete lack of knowledge here, but can you (or someone) > point me to details on where I can "just transform it into html 4.01 (or > xhtml) in the browser"? It basically boils down to: 1. Learn XSLT 2. Write a transformat

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Often it isn't even the end of a word! Michael, you're making that terrible mistake of making judgments based on no experience of physical documents. This /never/ happens. The physical structure of a page will often be entirely different to the logical structure;

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Geoff Pack wrote: Designer wrote: Wouldn't it be nice if we could get browsers to interpret ^ (or something) as meaning 'div id=' (and something else for 'class='). Then we could have, xml style code, such as: <^pageborder> <^content> blah blah MUCH more readable, and

RE: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

> -Original Message- > From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Wilson > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:00 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics] > > On 2/8/07, Geoff Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

On 8 Feb 2007, at 14:49:26, Andrew Maben wrote: On Feb 7, 2007, at 8:44 PM, Andrew Cunningham wrote: Would it make any sense to read out "I black hearts suit unicode"? The symbol has been used to indicate the word "love". FWIW, I happened to be reading the paper yesterday where the film wh

Re: [WSG] Not a Good Impression

Opened for me with Safari. On 8 Feb 2007, at 09:41:16, Tim wrote: I tried it in Opera on a Mac and got this javascript error message. Error message Statement in line 4:Expression did not evaluate to a function object: document.bodyinsertAdjacentHTML A Javascript error? Yup, insertAdjace

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

On Feb 7, 2007, at 8:44 PM, Andrew Cunningham wrote: Would it make any sense to read out "I black hearts suit unicode"? The symbol has been used to indicate the word "love". FWIW, I happened to be reading the paper yesterday where the film whose title is represented in its ads and title on s

Re: [WSG] slightly OT?: "Web 2.0 explained in a short, moving video"

On Feb 7, 2007, at 7:10 PM, Matthew Smith wrote: Sadly, Professor Wesch didn't mention accessiblity once. ... which in turn is a sad reflection on the importance of accessibility to the population at large. To the average user (as if there actually were such a person), accessibility boils

[WSG] Coding for Chinese

Hi Listers, Can anyone help me prepare for coding an HTML email in Chinese? I am on the Mac and use DW8 (code view) and have not done any asian language coding before. Any help would be appreciated... -- Tom Livingston | Senior Multimedia Artist | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.4

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Aja Lorenzo Lapus wrote: Isn't XHTML2 the one being endorsed by W3C and not HTML5? HTML5 is being formulated at WHATWG, AFAIK, Aja, you're completely correct. I'm immensely relieved and ashamed of my bad research at the same time. On the XML + XSLT issue - well XML is completely extensible a

[WSG] Setting focus and JAWS

Hello, I am currently working on testing a Web app and I am running into a problem testing with JAWS 7.0. I was wondering if anyone out there had any similar experiences and/or can offer any suggestions on how I can resolve the issue. Does what I describe seem like a bug with JAWS or an issu

Re: [WSG] HTTP compression in Apache

Hi, yes not much to do with standards but hey you need to use the resources available to you. On Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 22:23:17 +0900, Gav wrote: >No idea what this has to do with Web Standards, but anyway ... > >> -Original Message- >> From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAI

RE: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Designer wrote: > Wouldn't it be nice if we could get browsers to interpret ^ (or > something) as meaning 'div id=' (and something else for 'class='). > Then we could have, xml style code, such as: > <^pageborder> > <^content> > blah blah > > > MUCH more readable, and encourag

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Isn't XHTML2 the one being endorsed by W3C and not HTML5? HTML5 is being formulated at WHATWG, AFAIK, On 2/8/07, Barney Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am a bigger fan of XHTML 2, from what I have seen - it seems to me more like a sober re-design of HTML with the benefit of hindsight. HTML

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Designer wrote: <^pageborder> <^content> blah blah Looks like the current proposal for HTML 5 to me (except it doesn't have ^). Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Uns

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Mike Wilson wrote: Home About Contact ... Chuck Norris Jack Bauer This would tend to convey a page section (the side bar) that's been divided into 3 smaller portions, hence the

RE: [WSG] HTTP compression in Apache

No idea what this has to do with Web Standards, but anyway ... > -Original Message- > From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Nisha Kumari > Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2007 6:16 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: [WSG] HTTP compression in Apa

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

I am a bigger fan of XHTML 2, from what I have seen - it seems to me more like a sober re-design of HTML with the benefit of hindsight. HTML 5, on the other hand, seems to be more about making a huge list of specific elements to tag on to HTML. Of course, the problem is that the full potential

RE: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

I'm afraid your test doesn't answer the question that (I think) you were trying to ask, which is whether Google et al are able to _index_ these characters correctly. Your test merely shows that Google ignores them in an input query, not in the index itself. Perhaps some use of the advanced searc

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

On 2/8/07, Geoff Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Div doesn't have any semantics, it's a structural element only. And since when does structure not have meaning? I don't have to read any dictionary or the spec to agree with you Geoff. Structure in and of itself IS seman

RE: [WSG] Not a Good Impression

My apologies, let me describe my experience with it further: In Opera 9.1, loading and executing the url produces an addition to the address: /error_msg/unknown_browser.cfm The "Unknown or Untested Browser/Operating System Combination" page opens. Clicking the "Text Only Version" hyperlink prod

Re: [WSG] Not a Good Impression

Opened OK using Opera 9.1 for me. The top nav is a bit misaligned though. On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:22:41 +1000, Frank Palinkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Opened with Opera 9.10...got the same message as below: "Unknown or Untested Browser/Operating System Combinationetc. Kind regards, F

RE: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

> Why do we care if Google understands the ligature? 3x4 > doesn't seem like a keyword I would optimize for when it > comes to SEO... > There are lots of terms that might not seem like a keyword you would optimise for - until you get a client for whom it makes a difference. There's a clear SEO co

Re: [WSG] Not a Good Impression

I tried it in Opera on a Mac and got this javascript error message. Error message Statement in line 4:Expression did not evaluate to a function object: document.bodyinsertAdjacentHTML A Javascript error? Tim On 08/02/2007, at 8:22 PM, Frank Palinkas wrote: Opened with Opera 9.10...got the

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

On Thu, February 8, 2007 4:51 pm, Dmitry Baranovskiy wrote: > fl as ligaturehttp://www.google.com.au/search? > hl=en&q=flickr&btnG=Search&meta= > fl as two letters http://www.google.com.au/search? > hl=en&q=flickr&btnG=Search&meta= the fl ligature is probably a bad example.

OFF-LIST Re: [WSG] Correct way to mark up a quote and persons name

Mordechai Peller wrote: Designer wrote: q:before { content:''; } q:after{ content:''; } So why don't I see two sets of quotes in Firefox? If you examen the two rules very carefully you'll notice that each one has two single quotes and not one double quote; the result is an empty string. If

RE: [WSG] Not a Good Impression

Opened with Opera 9.10...got the same message as below: "Unknown or Untested Browser/Operating System Combinationetc. Kind regards, Frank M. Palinkas Microsoft M.V.P. - Windows Help M.C.P., M.C.T., M.C.S.E., M.C.D.B.A., A+ Senior Technical Communicator Web Standards & Accessibility Designer

[WSG] HTTP compression in Apache

Hi All, I am trying to implement HTTP compression in Apache. Have included following code in my httpd.conf file SetOutputFilter Deflate Options Indexes FollowSymLinks Includes AllowOverride None Order allow,deny Allow from all AddOutputFilt

RE: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

> Dmitry Baranovskiy > Add to this “Will search engines correctly understand such a > symbols?” The answer is “No”. > > Compare: > > 3×4 > http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=3%D74&btnG=Search&meta= > 3x4 > http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=3x4&btnG=Search&meta=

Re: [WSG] Not a Good Impression

It has too much javascript in the page BUT Actually it validates. http://validator.w3.org/check? uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slsa.sa.gov.au%2Fsite%2Fpage.cfm It let me in with no hinderance with Mozilla and Firefox, better than some libraries. Tim On 08/02/2007, at 7:50 PM, Matthew Smith wrote:

RE: [WSG] Pixel to EM conversion

Hi Scott, Thanks it is cool and very useful. I needed a calculator/ tool to convert Dialogue Unit dlu to pixels. Has any one come across such a tool, please let me know. Thanks in advance. Thanks & Regards, Mithil Yadav Usability Professional Mastek Ltd. Phone: +91 22 67914545/ 4646 Ext: 2108 Mo

[WSG] Not a Good Impression

Hi All Wondering if there are any SA Government folks here (or anyone else) who would like to comment on this beautiful welcome to the State Library site; for a moment, I thought I'd hit a test site or something. The offending site is at: http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/ I have never seen anything

[WSG] Pixel to EM conversion

Hi all I came across a very neat, and immensely useful tool online today that converts fixed pixel sizes to their relative em size equivalents. The Em Calculator[1] bases conversions on a specified base pixel conversion ratio, and provides you with immediate calculations for nested child and