Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NH] centering image for all monitors

Expand Messages
  • Cary
    Basically, all modern, major browsers handle true xhtml, that is xhtml served as xhtml rather than html, except IE which will ask you to save the page as a
    Message 1 of 20 , Jan 8, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Basically, all modern, major browsers handle true xhtml, that is xhtml
      served as xhtml rather than html, except IE which will ask you to save
      the page as a file.

      Obviously, sites configured for access by the general public are set
      up to serve pages as html so IE won't choke. Xhtml 1.0 is fine for
      this purpose, but xhtml 1.1 should only be used if it is in fact going
      to be served as xhtml.


      --- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, Greg Chapman wrote:
      >
      > Hi,
      >
      > On 08 Jan 09 19:14 MotoMania said:
      > > Glad that got things started. I try to stay W3C XHTML 1.1 and CSS
      > > standard with any sites that I create or update.
      >
      > I understand that no modern browser actually renders true XHTML and
      > simply converts the code to HTML and renders that. In consequence,
      > there is little point in writing XHTML markup for web sites. These
      > days XHTML is seen as a (rare?) blind alley up which the W3C
      > travelled. Indeed, I believe there is now an W3C HTML v5 working group
      > to update HTML for the modern environment.
      >
      > I confess that I have never bothered to check out these tales (from
      > people I respect) which I read on other forums, but the snippets I do
      > read elsewhere suggest that their remarks are true.
      >
      > These days my own sites use HTML4 STRICT (which obliges use of CSS).
      > It certainly handles the vast majority of hassles I used to get with
      > some browsers.
      >
      > Greg
      >
    • Cary
      Looking at the current page, the link styling should be changed so hover comes before active. a:link {text-decoration: none; color: navy;} a:visited
      Message 2 of 20 , Jan 8, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Looking at the current page, the link styling should be changed so
        hover comes before active.

        a:link {text-decoration: none; color: navy;}
        a:visited {text-decoration: none; color: navy;}
        a:hover {color: red; text-decoration: bold}
        a:active {text-decoration: none; color: navy;}
        a.other:link {color: #99FFFF; text-decoration: none}
        a.other:visited {color: #99FFFF; text-decoration: none}
        a.other:hover {color: pink; text-decoration: bold}
        a.other:active {color: red; text-decoration: none}


        --- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, "Edward" wrote:
        >
        > I am having trouble getting an image to center after putting a table
        with the links ot other pages on the left side of the page...
      • loro
        ... Exactly my opinion. With reservations for what Cary already said, that XHTML is treated as XML if it s served with an XHTML content-type. But it can t be,
        Message 3 of 20 , Jan 8, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Greg Chapman wrote:
          >I understand that no modern browser actually renders true XHTML and
          >simply converts the code to HTML and renders that. In consequence,
          >there is little point in writing XHTML markup for web sites.

          Exactly my opinion. With reservations for what Cary already said,
          that XHTML is treated as XML if it's served with an XHTML
          content-type. But it can't be, partly because of IE and partly
          because many (most?) XHTML pages wouldn't display in any browser if
          they were served with the correct content-type.

          XML has few requirements, but one of them is that a page that isn't
          well-formed shouldn't be displayed by the browser. All browsers
          conform to this. Since many XHTML pages aren't as well-written as
          their authors think when they plaster that XHTML button on, there
          would be a lot of blank pages on the web and most authors would
          quickly revert to HTML and the blessings of the error handling HTML
          parsers are so richly equipped with.

          This requirement makes me think XML isn't really suited to be used on
          this side of the server. Generated on the server, validated and
          foolproofed on the server, maybe. But how often does that happen? Can
          you imagine a site of any importance to its users or to the owner
          that goes blank until someone has found the tiny little error that
          maybe originates deep down in some server side program?

          Strict instead of Transitional is much more important. The fact that
          there even exists a Transitional version of XHTML and that it's
          widely used say everything about what the XHTML hype is about. I
          think the expression is "blowing smoke". ;-)

          Lotta
        • Axel Berger
          ... I would consider that as a huge advantage over current affairs. Now there is all kinds of junk all over the place and if it isn t displayed, people blame
          Message 4 of 20 , Jan 9, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            loro wrote:
            > there would be a lot of blank pages on the web and most
            > authors would quickly revert to HTML and the blessings
            > of the error handling HTML parsers are so richly equipped
            > with.

            I would consider that as a huge advantage over current affairs. Now
            there is all kinds of junk all over the place and if it isn't
            displayed, people blame their browser. More importantly and worse,
            if you go and complain to the junk merchants, they have the gall to
            tell you everyone else was satisfied and that it must be your fault.
            And of course, if all browsers gave error messages instead of
            guessed at approximate renderings our life would be easier and we'd
            not need to employ all those extra validating tools and would not
            get caught out by those easily overlooked little mistakes, that
            happen not to show up when trying things out in the few browsers and
            versions we happen to have at our disposal.

            Life would become harder for all thise idiots out there refusing to
            take care and not trying to do a good rather than botched job, but I
            don't see how that would be bad.

            Axel
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.