| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Comments:
<0> webben: but I know it's possible, heh. I've seen lots of sites that have background colours set on individual option tags, for headings and such, set to "disabled"
<1> Samus_Aran: You might be running into optgroup elements, but they aren't all that common
<2> My god, i've found the single greatest magazine of all time: Modern Drunkard Magazine.
<0> ptlis: heh. online or hardcopy ?
<3> any idea why the page I created shows as 0 kb when I transfer it to the site via ftp?
<0> swimrr: out of space on your server ?
<3> Samus_Aran: hmmmm - never thought of that!
<0> Dorward: what is are optgroup elements ?
<1> `html optgroup
<4> Found for HTML 4.01 - optgroup - http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/forms.html#edef-OPTGROUP
<3> can someone tell me what this crap is I found in the .htaccess file on my brothers site? http://pastebin.ca/318658
<2> From the looks of it both, though i'm currently browsing the archives on their website.
<3> Samus_Aran: nope, that wasn' it - does it have anything to do with the crap in this .htaccess file? http://pastebin.ca/318658
<1> swimrr: Why would apache configuration directives have any influence of ftp transfers?
<3> Dorward: I have no idea..... ;p
<3> hmmmm - maybe it was a size thing....
<0> swimrr: it has something to do with your FTP client or some limit the server is putting on you
<3> Samus_Aran: thanks
<0> Dorward: thank you, hadn't seen <optgroup> before
<0> Dorward: and yes, that is exactly what I was after. I didn't know that was an HTML thing, I thought it was just people messing with CSS. nice =)
<0> swimrr: just make sure you open up the console/log/etc. when transfering the file, if the server gives you any error message, it will be listed there
<5> does anyone know an example of a site with a well done gift / wedding registry?
<0> ChrisC35: I'm not sure what a gift registry is
<6> ChrisC35: ... Amazon?
<7> heh, running ie7 under linux now :)
<8> so would you use flash on your site or not
<8> ?
<9> babo, If it added anything, and if I provided a HTML/other alternative, possibly.
<8> should I still start a page with one of those css layout thingys, or is that dead now ?
<6> babo: 'layout thingies'?
<5> whats a css layout thingy?
<8> hmm ... one of those server side scripts that you fill out a form, and it gives you back the layout basics for a css page ...
<8> ... matching the choices that you made ...
<8> I have two design ideas for a site that I'm doing. The site has to sell a piece of software.
<8> idea #1 : http://www.oswd.org/design/preview/id/3010/
<8> idea #2 : http://www.templatemonster.com/website-templates/11242.html
<8> which one looks better do you think ?
<5> redrevenge definately sux
<5> the other one has too many borders going on
<8> ChrisC35: I dunno, I quite like the redRevenge one. It's certainly missing a bit of ... umphhh ... but overall it's a nice design IMO
<5> it doesnt look like a designer did it
<5> and it looks like about 20mins of work went into it
<5> not sure how they can refer to it as a 'design'
<5> why does it have XHTML | CSS in the footer?
<6> How much work is needed, then, before it becomes 'a design'?
<5> more than slapping on a couple of borders, and a lorem
<5> header is a box with a background colour
<6> Ok ... is there any time limit after which it automatically becomes a 'design' when enough effort is spent, perhaps?
<5> looks like it was done by a primary school student
<5> obviously that is subjective and you have to use your judgement
<5> and mine is that this is not a design
<0> babo: to your question, if the Flash animation is not required for the functioning of the site, then it should be fine to use. but definitely do not rely on Flash for any core functionality
<0> especially not if you're trying to sell a product, that's just shooting yourself in the foot. Flash is awful when it comes to site accessibility, it also eliminates search engines from spidering your content
<5> flash is good for display style areas, galleries of photos fading or in the header - but should not be used for menus, navigation, structure or like samus said
<5> and definately not for importnat content
<0> it always blows my mind when sites use Flash exclusively, even on their start page, thereby cutting of search engines from indexing their site completely
<0> *off
<0> http://www.hanaho.com/ << a good example of how not to use Flash =) they even say inside their Flash animation, once you have loaded the site "This site requires Flash, download it here" ... quite idiotic.
<5> well they at least have their textual content in html
<10> i have a li { color: #fff; background-color: #fff; } li:hover { color: #fff; background-color: #000; } but the css validator says that i have different values in the background-color and it give me warnings
<10> what about if i want to change the background-color in li:hover?
<0> ChrisC35: if you go to the site without flash, you get a big black screen =)
<0> ChrisC35: and once you're in, it has very broken flash buttons. the only way I was able to look at the site at all was googling for: site:hanaho.com
<0> ChrisC35: it doesn't link to its own content, so if you google for the company name, it won't find most of the pages from their site
<9> olsen_, it's best to wait more than 3 minutes before asking the same Q in multiple channels.
<10> webben: ok
<0> olsen_: that isn't really a question. you did what you said you wanted to do
<0> olsen_: you can apply whatever CSS you want on :hover, though as far as I know, this is somewhat broken in MSIE for some elements
<6> Not as much broken as unsupported on anything outside of A.
<9> Samus_Aran, I thought IE7 supported hover on everything now?
<2> Samus_Aran, in <=IE6 it only works on anchors
<2> ><
<0> yeah, that's what it was. and that seems rather broken to me
<0> webben: I haven't used MSIE 7 yet, but I heard it did fix that. (though it also broke many other things)
<6> Samus_Aran: well ... whether it is broken depends a little on how you read the spec.
<0> Windrose: why, what does the spec say about :hover ?
<6> Samus_Aran: not a whole lot.
<0> heh
<5> now that IE7 supports hover on elements, it makes menus much easier to make
<5> I dont bother supporting IE6 on that anymore
<6> Samus_Aran: however ... "The :hover pseudo-cl*** applies while the user designates an element (with some pointing device), but does not activate it."
<5> so their menu wont change colours big deal
<5> get the IE7 update and get with the times
<6> Samus_Aran: ... and since you can't "activate" a TR, it could be reasonably said that :hover doesn't apply.
<0> Windrose: it says "does not activate", but "designates it"
<5> ya trs are limited, better to give the TR a cl*** or id, and then use descendant selector to affect the td's inside
<6> Samus_Aran: "designates an element" - "but" - "does not activate it". So you can interpret it both way.
<6> ... ways.
<0> I mean, it doesn't say there that it has to be 'activateable', just 'designateable with some pointing device'
<0> but yes, rather vague
<0> I think HTML 5.0 is needed, with far less vague definitions
<0> and CSS 7 or so
<6> Samus_Aran: "CSS doesn't define which elements may be in the above states" - this is also rather important.
<6> Samus_Aran: so ... not broken. Just differently implemented.
<9> Samus_Aran, Well. That's what WHATWG are trying to provide and what TBL says W3C will provide.
<0> Windrose: so it explicitly states which elements are covered by :hover are not defined ?
<6> Samus_Aran: yep.
<0> well then I take back what I said about MSIE being broken, and change it to the spec is broken and Microsoft was just lazy programming their implimentation
<6> Samus_Aran: So ... Opera and Mozilla took the "everything is" route; IE didn't. Granted, the former is useful, but while I do DETEST IE ...
<0> taking the easy way out
<6> The spec could be decidedly more, eh, specific. And yes, the W3C ought make a new one.
<6> ... I'm not sure that what the whatwg has so far counts.
<0> I've noticed so many vague definitions in the W3C specs. the entire point of a "specification" is that it is specific, not an HTML Vaguification
<9> Windrose, Well WHATWG isn't working on CSS. (Partly because W3C already has exactly the same people working on CSS3.)
<0> like the form elements I was looking at a half hour ago, there are five or six places in <select> and <option> where they say "how this should be handled is not defined"
<6> webben: no, but I don't think they are any good at making things non-vague either.
<9> Windrose, Are you talking about the CSS3 drafts or the WHATWG drafts or both?
<9> I think they are clarifying some things and opening up new areas of vagueness.
<0> I just looked at the <optgroup> tag in MSIE, Opera and a text browser. very different looking, I think Opera's looks the nicest and Links text browser was the easiest to select with
<0> it only showed the top level groups, and then you use the arrow keys to open the sub-menu
<0> MSIE's was quite awful. it showed only 4 items in the drop-down, and a tiny scrollbar
<6> webben: I just remarked that while the WHATWG attempts a HTML 5, their work so far is no less un-vague than the HTML 4 spec.
<0> is there some MSIE hack to make form drop-downs show more than 4 lines ? it's quite painful with a big list
<6> webben: frankly I think they need some technical writers employed.
<9> Windrose, Do you know whether technical writers were employed on HTML4?
<0> maybe they should have a brainstorming wiki for the 5.0 spec .. (not entirely public, you need to register first). it could be helpful for filling in some of the vague parts
<9> *for HTML4
<9> Samus_Aran, who is they? both WHATWG and W3C have public mailing lists.
<9> Samus_Aran, And I suppose the WHATWG wiki might count.
<9> (there's also a blog you can register for)
<6> webben: no idea.
<6> Samus_Aran: writing by the round-robin idea?
<0> they being anyone. I just mean dumping the entire current spec in, then allowing a large community of people to fill in blanks, and discuss changes. let people argue over the nitty gritty details and eventually it would very likely form something pretty solid
<6> I think I'll stick to my suggestion of employing good authors to work with the technical people ...
<6> Samus_Aran: OR ... something really mushy.
<9> Samus_Aran, well one good thing is they are writing a reference implementation simultaneously with the spec.
<9> (not a renderer, but a parser)
<9> Samus_Aran, how is that different to the existing draft + mailing list?
<11> Going to work this afternoon...still haven't been to the doctor yet.
<6> webben: with the wiki, people could do their edits themselves ...
<6> ... which is good, and bad.
<11> I don't think that my sister quite gets that it's more important for ME to be getting to the doctor than for her to get her perfect hours.
<11> :P
<0> webben: it is very different, it is realtime and very directly encourages a large community to participate. mailing lists are painful for something like that, as one individual might only care about one small part of the spec
<0> with a wiki, they can comment and edit only that one part they are interested in
<0> mailing lists tend to overload people quickly
<12> http://rapidshare.com/files/8820310/nogare.part1.rar.html
<12> can someone have a look at my problem at http://sial.org/pbot/22435
<6> Samus_Aran: they do, however, have the advantage that people can't edit willy-nilly and muck up things.
<0> Windrose: which is why I suggested that it require registration, that way if someone is deemed to just be messing around, they delete that account and all their changes are reverted
<1> perefuet54: Err. You don't return false from your event handler, so the href triggers and normal, and the target hits.
<9> Samus_Aran, It's generally a good idea to have an editor with some sort of overall oversight and say.
<6> Samus_Aran: much easier not allowing anyone but designated editors in the first place, don't you think? Besides, mailing lists or newsgroups a DESIGNED to be places where one can discuss.
<9> I may not agree with Hixie on everything, but I'm sure glad he exists. :)
<13> hello all!
<13> thanks to whoever pointed me to django, it's great
<11> I'm going to complain about something now before I go eat lunch.
<14> KimmoA: http://www.thai-blogs.com/index.php?blog=8&p=1402&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
<0> Windrose: well, as I said, mailing lists tend to be m***ive information overload for most people. there are thousands of people out there that could contribute, but wouldn't with a mailing list, as it is too tiring trying to use it
Return to
#web
or
Go to some related
logs:
DELL LANTITUDE D610
nec multisync 75 ubuntu
audigy 2 nx and ubuntu
#perl
#php
#css
img2iso fc5 rpm
perl, eval my
allenknutsonsotherclass
manual for ati linux
|
|