Forum Moderators: open
However, with CFStudio 5 it puts in <em> instead of <i>, and <strong> instead of <b>. Are <em> and <strong> part of a new web standard or is CFStudio 5 acting the fool?
XHTML
Interesting! I was just thinking that content-crazy people who are really content-oriented (as far as defining content structure) should develop a mix between HTML and XML ... and here it is! I only skimmed the surface of it, but it looks like a good thing (as long as it's compatible).
Accessibilty: That is one of my main reasons for getting behind the CSS movement. Cleaner code is also more friendly to alternative user-agents - by quite a bit!
One one hand.. we have users who CAN upgrade and allow us all more freedom to move on to standards and Accessibility, while on the other hand we have a very substantial group of Internet surfers who NEED "accessibility coded" sites. Who would YOU rather code for?
[w3.org...]
Yep... WAI it is!
I've been doing that with my html for over two years now! Until someone tells me that html is deprecated, I'm sticking with what works for me and the rest of the world! Although I do have pages that have validated XHTML, I reverted back to HTML after some problems with spidering tests.
(edited by: pageoneresults at 11:37 pm (utc) on April 30, 2002)
you're posting links and stuff faster than an elephant can play The Rose on a guitar!
.. or something like that
Um, am I off topic now? I mean .. it's a CSS elephant!
I love Opera's Bookmarks feature... Let's me get organized. Now THAT'S a very SCARY thought! ;)
I think we should tape his eyelids open and place him in front of monitor with the W3C pages scrolling in front of him. Of course at a pace where he can read each single line of text
Hey Pageone! About 1400 words a minute last time I tested... lol!!!!
Now let's see... where was I?
I've always been a fan of analogy.
<i>Lots of<b>tangents</b>to "go off on"</i>... ;)
... See! Another "tangent" already! <strong>SEO!</strong>
<i>Lots of<b>tangents</b>to "go off on"</i>...
Ahem,
<em>Lots of<strong>tangents</strong>to "go off on"</em>...
<br />
<hr />
<img />
I like my code to be pretty. These are not pretty.
Can we put just
<br/>
<hr/>
instead, without the space before the "/"? I can bear that a little more.
disabled="disabled"
readonly="readonly"
I'd prefer if the compacted tags were written as:
disabled="true"
readonly="true"
you can blame THOSE on old browsers as well... the extra space in needed to "hack/work" display properly in older user agents.
Pretty code, 70/30 content to code ratio: myProfileUrl + lisa_richards.htm
XHTML/CSS/@import - all valid.
(edited by: papabaer at 12:26 am (utc) on May 1, 2002)
<added> Speaking of old .. you're saying it's time to leave HTML 1.0 behind and move on?? ;) </added>
(edited by: DrDoc at 12:30 am (utc) on May 1, 2002)
That's some of the cleanest code I've ever seen, ESPECIALLY for such a seemingly complex layout.
Methinks I should start using <div>s instead of tables. They seem to give you more control.
A couple of questions:
1. You use @import in your style declaration. Is this the same thing as using the <link> tag?
2. I notice your <style> declarations are flush-left (i.e., not indented with the rest of the <head> crowd). Reasons for this?
3. I'm assuming the absolute positioning for the <div>s are in your external stylesheets?
4. Why use & hellip;?
5. How'd you get that background perfectly behind those images? I've never learned all that much about CSS positioning...
1) @import "imports" the style sheets in a similar way as with <link> except NN4 does not understand the @import rule (SUPRISE!) and consequently does not read any styles.
The result for NN4 surfers is a page delivered in the default mode. Positioning, backgrounds, etc. all nada!
This particular page DOES render well in NN4 with styles in place... BUT! *nudge, nudge* I have my reasons for delivering "unstyled pages" to NN4.
2) No reason other that a visual cue for me while working on the page.
3)Yes... you can download the very simple stylesheet to see the CSS-P
4)Good form... ;)
5) It starts with Photoshop and LAYERS. I create the image layout (background) and then place photos/images where I want them, each on a new layer. When I have it the way I want it... I save the background as one optimized file and the other images individually.
When I layout a page, I guess/estimate the initial positions of the <div>'s - I first write my CSS into the head content, that way I can teak all the placements very easily. I use Homesite 5 for my editor so switching between the code view (Edit) and page view (Broswe) is just a click on a tab. it makes tweaking layouts a breeze. Pixel perfect layouts!
After I am finished with a page, I will cut/copy the CSS into TopStyle Pro, or RadPad and save it as a .css file.
Then I reference the CSS using the @import rule.
Very clean... very manageable, optimized. :)
Hey PageOne!
I'm convinced that papabaer is 3 cascading style sheets in the wind.Thats CSS3 sheets to the wind! LOL!
Here... now you'll lose even MORE sleep! [w3.org...]
- papabaer
(edited by: papabaer at 2:30 am (utc) on May 1, 2002)
Hehehe, I didn't even think to add CSS3, that was good!
<-- Okay, I just got my Scrambled Eggs! WooHoo! Now watch Brett change it again to 500.
the web is not a visual medium...it may seem so to people who mostly use it that way, but it is a conceptual medium that can be interpreted visually or by sound, or even touch (I have as yet not heard of a way of browsing by smell or taste)
bold and italic are purely visual specifications...they tell a text to speech browser absolutely nothing...so they will be ignored...strong and em are conceptual and can be interpreted by any type of browser
so the most effective thing to do is to use the conceptual terms in the mark up...and then to specify things like bold or italic in the style sheet where appropriate
As more developers become aware of coding for Web Accessibility, <em> and <strong> will see greater useage as the W3C information notes, these tags elicit variations in pitch and volume from certain aural user-agents.
Why don't the creators of the aural user agents make their software interpret <i> and <b> as <em> and <strong>? They'd solve a lot of accessibility problems in one fell swoop.
