[WSG] Check

Hi guys, please check my new experiment.    A Xhtml Websites List Directory. Sorry but is in italian language.   http://www.gizax.it/vtre/xwl.php?pag=0   cheers   Daniel http://www.gizax.it

[WSG] check website

Hi guys,   please, check this website http://www.creareconkaterina.com   cheers   Daniele

Re: [WSG] Check

Interesting, Not really a problem with your site, but I just checked the headers of the top 4 sites and they had Content-Type: text/html. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi guys, > please check my new experiment. > > A Xhtml Websites List Directory. Sorry but is in italian language. > > http://ww

RE: [WSG] Check

, 2005 2:16 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Check Hi guys, please check my new experiment. A Xhtml Websites List Directory. Sorry but is in italian language. http://www.gizax.it/vtre/xwl.php?pag=0 cheers Daniel http://www.gizax.it

Re: [WSG] Check

thanks ;) - Original Message - From: "Conyers, Dwayne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 4:16 PM Subject: RE: [WSG] Check Running the page through the translator at babelfish.altavista.com was good enough to translate the text. Looks g

[WSG] Check website

Hi all, Check this website for a marketing company. Some section are coming soon. http://www.arcapplied.org/tempodaniele/index.php regards Daniel http://www.gizax.it ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandar

Re: [WSG] check website

A few suggestions: 1) The site could fit at 800x600, but the fixed margins make it too large. 2) Consider using text with background images for the menu and footer, instead of images of text. This would reduce file size and make the site useable by people who can't or won't view images. If that

Re: [WSG] check website

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi guys, > > please, check this website > http://www.creareconkaterina.com > Hi Daniele, You have more than *140kb* of images on this page... IMHO, you should try to reduce that... Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The d

Re: [WSG] check website

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : A few suggestions: 1) The site could fit at 800x600, but the fixed margins make it too large. 2) Consider using text with background images for the menu and footer, instead of images of text. This would reduce file size and make the site useable by people who can

RE: [WSG] Check website

- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gizax Studios Sent: Monday, 21 February 2005 5:19 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Check website Hi all, Check this website for a marketing company. Some section are coming soon. http://www.arcapplied.org

Re: [WSG] Check website

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:18:44 +0100, Gizax Studios <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all, Check this website for a marketing company. Some section are coming soon. http://www.arcapplied.org/tempodaniele/index.php regards> Daniel http://www.gizax.it Daniel, I like the color and general feel ot the s

Re: [WSG] Check website

thanks :))) Daniel - Original Message - From: "David Laakso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 8:24 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Check website On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:18:44 +0100, Gizax Studios <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all, Check this w

Re: [WSG] check website -- creareconkaterina

re: check website A little late on replying, sorry. This is my personal Web style sheet... True Confessions -- (or how to suceed at Web design without driving yourself nuts): -start with a robust, stable, cross-browser reliable layout -let the content be fir

RE: [WSG] check list for development

I would suggest some business orientated checks as well (most likely off-topic though) - Are you meeting user goals? - Is your content web orientated? There would be a lot more in there I would think, but I think it should be included for any check list of a development plan. Tim Hill Computer A

[WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

Hello all   I recall reading somewhere a while back that UK law states you can't have a check box ticked on a form   EG - "untick this box if you don't want to receive emails" would be illegal for a UK site.    Could anyone tell me if I'm right or wrong and if possible give me some credible

RE: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law) Hello all   I recall reading somewhere a while back that UK law states you can't have a check box ticked on a form   EG - "untick this box if you don't want to receive emails" would be illegal for a UK site.   

Re: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

help [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -Original Message- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of *Paul Collins *Sent:* 30 January 2006 15:33 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

Re: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

uot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law) I believe this question would fall within the scope of this group. Anyway I would be very interested to know the answer to this, with a link to the related legislation. Giles

Re: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

On 31 Jan 2006, at 12:33 am, Paul Collins wrote: I recall reading somewhere a while back that UK law states you can't have a check box ticked on a form EG - "untick this box if you don't want to receive emails" would be illegal for a UK site. That would be European Community law, not onl

Re: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

Just out of curiosity, what about "Tick this box if you don't want to receive massive amounts of spam"? Is it really anti-checked box, or anti-default-opt-in? Seems pretty... open to abuse and/or re-interpretation, unless it's the latter. On 1/31/06, Philippe Wittenbergh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Re: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

Richard Czeiger wrote: I agree - I think the areas of "Web Standards" and "Best Practices" should go side by side. If one country has decided to actually legislate on something then it's at least worth discussing. I fail to see how the UK's "anti-spam law" is relevant to web standards...but n

Re: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

Paul Collins wrote: Could anyone tell me if I'm right or wrong and if possible give me some credible links to back this up? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/26/prior_consent_does_not_mean/ Kind of right, kind of wrong :) ** The discuss

Re: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

To quickly follow up, before the thread gets presumably closed for being way off topic: Patrick H. Lauke wrote: The Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications (2002/58/EC)

[WSG] check site om Mac OS 9 and IE

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with this site on a Mac OS 9 using IE as browser (no version specified): www.mardahl.dk It was tested in IE 6.0, Firefox 0.8, and Opera 7, but I don't have any Macs available for testing. Someone in one of my networks commented on this problem for her Mac, but fel