On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 22:38 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:13:11PM +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +, a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley
Sheridan) wrote:
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
...
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 22:38 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:13:11PM +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +, a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley
Sheridan) wrote:
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS
Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document
standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they
On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 16:03 -0500, Andrew Ballard wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS
Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document
standard
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:12:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
I'm doing quite a bit more work in public sector these days. Recently ne
department finally did away with IE6 and moved to IE7. Here's what I had
to do to accomodate this
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +, a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley Sheridan)
wrote:
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
...
There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS
Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:13:11PM +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +, a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley
Sheridan) wrote:
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
...
There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties
Lester Caine wrote:
Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
somewhat premature!
What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least
allowing IE8 to install on W2k
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 07:02 -0600, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
somewhat premature!
What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort
On 10 February 2010 13:02, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have
heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most
of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages with regards to
At 7:02 AM -0600 2/10/10, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
somewhat premature!
What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 09:41 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 7:02 AM -0600 2/10/10, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
somewhat premature!
Lester Caine wrote:
James McLean wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote:
as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web
developers mailing list right?
The
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have
heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most
of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages with regards to
technology, which could go some way to explaining the abysmal
Richard Quadling wrote:
On 10 February 2010 13:02, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have
heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most
of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages
From: Robert Cummings
Lester Caine wrote:
James McLean wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem
Maas) wrote:
as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a
web
developers mailing
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:17 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
From: Robert Cummings
Lester Caine wrote:
James McLean wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem
Maas) wrote:
as for using IE6 ... WTF
Bob McConnell wrote:
From: Robert Cummings
Lester Caine wrote:
James McLean wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem
Maas) wrote:
as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a
From: Ashley Sheridan
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:17 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
From: Robert Cummings
Lester Caine wrote:
James McLean wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem
Maas) wrote:
as for
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 11:20 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
From: Ashley Sheridan
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:17 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
From: Robert Cummings
Lester Caine wrote:
James McLean wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010
Bob McConnell wrote:
Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
The W3C validator rejects that autocomplete attribute because it still
isn't in any valid standard. Some browsers have introduced it, and PCI
requires it to be there for browsers that recognise it, but it's not a
good security feature, as browsers don't have to honor it
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:20 -0800, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Bob McConnell wrote:
Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Bob McConnell wrote:
Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
around. There are a few minor issues, such as
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 13:25 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Bob McConnell wrote:
Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
browsers. It's a lot less work than trying
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 13:25 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Bob McConnell wrote:
Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
browsers. It's a lot less
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
What about search engines? Will there be any impact on these,
particularly with regards to semantic content?
I expect semantic markup to (eventually) improve how pages are indexed.
Also, are there any browsers that would fall over with unknown tags? I
know IE
Robert Cummings wrote:
Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and not
IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of inexperience,
inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
I use ID when there will only be one element that needs to be
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:56:36PM +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
snip
The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP,
and produce
relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6,
and think my
webpages display correctly on any of
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and
not IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of
inexperience, inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
I use ID when there will only be one
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and not
IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of inexperience,
inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
I use ID when there will only be one
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and
not IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of
inexperience, inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
I use ID when
Shawn McKenzie wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
somewhat premature!
What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least
allowing IE8 to
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
aside. Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
aside. Sure it's aside, but it's not
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
aside. Sure it's aside, but it's not
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
aside. Sure it's
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous
Robert Cummings wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Robert Cummings rob...@interjinn.com wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
The most common misconception of how this element should be used is for
the standard sidebar. - see: http://html5doctor.com/understanding-aside/
Unfortunatley I examined that side quite
Robert Cummings wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the
sidebar
in a two
Andrew Ballard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Robert Cummings rob...@interjinn.com wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
The most common misconception of how this element should be used is for
the standard sidebar. - see: http://html5doctor.com/understanding-aside/
Unfortunatley I examined
tedd wrote:
At 1:38 PM -0500 2/10/10, Robert Cummings wrote:
Agreed. Those make sense to demarcate the structure layout of the
document... but still, for styling the class makes more sense since it
keeps the specificity low and easy to override (especially true for
skinnable apps). In my
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote:
Op 2/4/10 1:32 AM, clanc...@cybec.com.au schreef:
Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 -
0200), that I can
open a bookmark in the manual, for example
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote:
as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web
developers mailing list right?
The interesting things in my websites go on
James McLean wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote:
as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web
developers mailing list right?
The interesting things in my
Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 - 0200),
that I can
open a bookmark in the manual, for example
http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.
But if I then do a search of any type I get 'The page cannot be displayed'. I
then cannot
reach any page, including
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 11:32 +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 -
0200), that I can
open a bookmark in the manual, for example
http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.
But if I then do a search of any type I get 'The
Op 2/4/10 1:32 AM, clanc...@cybec.com.au schreef:
Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 -
0200), that I can
open a bookmark in the manual, for example
http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.
But if I then do a search of any type I get 'The page cannot be
51 matches
Mail list logo
