By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
443,983 Members | 1,597 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 443,983 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

font sizing problem

P: n/a
I've got some CSS that looks like this:

body {
margin: 0;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 140.01%;
color: #000000;
}

but IE won't apply the font size to text in table cells so I've had to
modify it to this:

body {
margin: 0;
}

body, td {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 140.01%;
color: #000000;
}

This "fixes" it in IE buy in MZ the font size in table cells is too
large. I believe it's 140.01% of 140.01%. I think the only way around
this is to load a specific style sheet depending on the the browser.

Is this the right way to go about this or is there a better way?
Andrew Poulos

PS the .01% was added because someone told me to and I didn't know
enough about fonts to disagree.
Jul 21 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
53 Replies


P: n/a
Hi,

Andrew Poulos wrote:
[...]
Is this the right way to go about this or is there a better way?

What IE-Version?
Is your code valid?
Do you have an example-page?
How do you exactly want the font-size?

Chris
Jul 21 '05 #2

P: n/a
Chris Leipold wrote:
Hi,

Andrew Poulos wrote:
> [...]
> Is this the right way to go about this or is there a better way? What IE-Version?

V.6
Is your code valid? It checks out with http://validator.w3.org/check
Do you have an example-page? I don't have a URL to a page but here's the code:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title>test</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style" content="text/css" />
<style type="text/css">
<!--
body {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 200.01%;
}
#layer1 {
cursor: pointer;
position: absolute;
left: 210px;
top: 120px;
width: 600px;
background-color: #ccffff;>
}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>

<div id="layer1">
<table width="100%">
<tr>
<td width="20"><img id="img0" src="btn_norm.png" alt="bullet"
title="bullet point" width="18" height="18" /></td>
<td>This is the first line.</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>

</body>
</html>
How do you exactly want the font-size?


If 100% is typically 12 point then I'm assuming/hoping that 200% is
24pt. 200% is the size I want.

The text in table cells displays at 100% in IE6. In MZ it displays at
200%. If I change the CSS selector from "body" to "body, td" then the
text in table cells displays at 200% (which is what I want) in IE but at
400% (which I don't want) in MZ.

Andrew Poulos
Jul 21 '05 #3

P: n/a
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Andrew Poulos wrote:
I've got some CSS that looks like this:

body { font-size: 140.01%; }

but IE won't apply the font size to text in table cells so I've had to
modify it to this:
Why are you using 140% font for body?
body, td {font-size: 140.01%; }
body will be 140% of normal
td will be 140% from body font. So about twice as big as normal.

Use
td {font-size:inherit}
it might work.
This "fixes" it in IE buy in MZ the font size in table cells is too
large. I believe it's 140.01% of 140.01%. I think the only way around
this is to load a specific style sheet depending on the the browser.

Is this the right way to go about this or is there a better way? PS the .01% was added because someone told me to and I didn't know
enough about fonts to disagree.


Not usually needed. IIRC, that was for Opera 6 on some special cases.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Jul 21 '05 #4

P: n/a
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Andrew Poulos wrote:
Chris Leipold wrote:
Is your code valid?

It checks out with http://validator.w3.org/check
Do you have an example-page?

I don't have a URL to a page but here's the code:


Bad thing. I have no idea what mime type is used...
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
You get quirks mode in IE with that doctype. Also, XHTML transitional is
very stupid choise. Use strict, and if you want it to work in IE use
HTML4 strict. (or drop xml prolog, and let browsers believe your XHTML
is HTML)
<style type="text/css">
<!--
body { .... background-color: #ccffff;>
}
-->
</style>
Hm you don't have any styles? Didn't you know that in XHTML, comments
inside style block are comments?
How do you exactly want the font-size?


If 100% is typically 12 point then I'm assuming/hoping that 200% is
24pt.


Irrelevant.
200% is the size I want.
Why do you want 200%?
The text in table cells displays at 100% in IE6. In MZ it displays at
200%.
IE is in quirks mode, so it is implementing old bug of not inheriting
stuff on tables.
If I change the CSS selector from "body" to "body, td" then the
text in table cells displays at 200% (which is what I want) in IE but at
400% (which I don't want) in MZ.


That is because you ask it to be 400%.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Jul 21 '05 #5

P: n/a
Hi Andrew,
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
like Lauri pointed out, the xml-declaration causes IE to use
quirks-mode. You have to omit it and use a meta-element for the
encoding. Then your page should render same on IE.
If I change the CSS selector from "body" to "body, td" then the
text in table cells displays at 200% (which is what I want) in IE but at
400% (which I don't want) in MZ.


That is because you ask it to be 400%.


"body, td" means body *and* td. The result is body 200% and td 200% of
200% -> 400%

hth.
Jul 21 '05 #6

P: n/a
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:19:51 +1100, Andrew Poulos <ap*****@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I've got some CSS that looks like this:

body {
margin: 0;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 140.01%;
color: #000000;
}

but IE won't apply the font size to text in table cells so I've had to
modify it to this:

body {
margin: 0;
}

body, td {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 140.01%;
color: #000000;
}

This "fixes" it in IE buy in MZ the font size in table cells is too
large. I believe it's 140.01% of 140.01%.


That would be correct CSS interpretetion. Instead, set body to the percent
size you want and the table element to 100% or 1em.

However, I'm betting you are using a transitional, or no, DTD and that's
really what;s causing the problem. Do I win?
Jul 21 '05 #7

P: n/a

Uzytkownik "Andrew Poulos" <ap*****@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:41***********************@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
I've got some CSS that looks like this:

body {
margin: 0;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 140.01%;
color: #000000;
}

but IE won't apply the font size to text in table cells so I've had to
modify it to this:

body {
margin: 0;
}

body, td {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 140.01%;
color: #000000;
}

This "fixes" it in IE buy in MZ the font size in table cells is too
large. I believe it's 140.01% of 140.01%. I think the only way around
this is to load a specific style sheet depending on the the browser.

Is this the right way to go about this or is there a better way?
Andrew Poulos


body { font-size: 140%; }
* html td { font-size: 140%; }


Jul 21 '05 #8

P: n/a
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, vatore wrote:
body { font-size: 140%; }
* html td { font-size: 140%; }


Don't use ugly hacks to cure IE when problem quirks mode.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Jul 21 '05 #9

P: n/a
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Andrew Poulos wrote:
Chris Leipold wrote:


Is your code valid?


It checks out with http://validator.w3.org/check

Do you have an example-page?


I don't have a URL to a page but here's the code:

Bad thing. I have no idea what mime type is used...

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

You get quirks mode in IE with that doctype. Also, XHTML transitional is
very stupid choise. Use strict, and if you want it to work in IE use
HTML4 strict. (or drop xml prolog, and let browsers believe your XHTML
is HTML)


Please pardon my ignorance but why is XHTML transitional such a bad choice?
<style type="text/css">
<!--
body {


...
background-color: #ccffff;>
}
-->
</style>

Hm you don't have any styles? Didn't you know that in XHTML, comments
inside style block are comments?


More of my ignorance :-(

Does the same thing happen with script blocks?
How do you exactly want the font-size?


If 100% is typically 12 point then I'm assuming/hoping that 200% is
24pt.

Irrelevant.

200% is the size I want.

Why do you want 200%?


I don't quite follow your question? I want the font at 200% so that it's
twice "normal" size. Are you suggesting I use some other way to define
the font size?
The text in table cells displays at 100% in IE6. In MZ it displays at
200%.

IE is in quirks mode, so it is implementing old bug of not inheriting
stuff on tables.

If I change the CSS selector from "body" to "body, td" then the
text in table cells displays at 200% (which is what I want) in IE but at
400% (which I don't want) in MZ.

That is because you ask it to be 400%.


OK so it's quirks mode that causes IE to misbehave?

Andrew Poulos
Jul 21 '05 #10

P: n/a
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:49:49 +1100, Andrew Poulos wrote:
I want ..
[1]
..the font at 200% so that it's twice "normal" ...
[2]
...size. Are you suggesting I use some other way to define
the font size?


[1] Any use of the term 'I want' when describing a web-page is a bad sign.

If you set the font size at 100%, the *user* gets the size
of text that the *user* wants. Simple instructions on resizing
the text in their browser suffice to allow the user to increase,
or decrease the font size at will.

[2] Yeah, sure! If this reasonning is followed, then every
web-designer who wants the page to appear prominent will quickly
go to %200, which then becomes the 'norm'. Are you intending to
go to %400 when that happens? ;-)

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
http://www.LensEscapes.com/ Images that escape the mundane
Jul 21 '05 #11

P: n/a
Andrew Thompson wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:49:49 +1100, Andrew Poulos wrote:

I want ..

[1]

..the font at 200% so that it's twice "normal" ...

[2]

...size. Are you suggesting I use some other way to define
the font size?

[1] Any use of the term 'I want' when describing a web-page is a bad sign.

If you set the font size at 100%, the *user* gets the size
of text that the *user* wants. Simple instructions on resizing
the text in their browser suffice to allow the user to increase,
or decrease the font size at will.


Would have it been better if I said "the management team that was hired
by the client wants" or "the usability experts evaluation reported that
the user wants"? I didn't mean to imply anything other than I have a
problem I'm required to solve, but yes "I want".
[2] Yeah, sure! If this reasonning is followed, then every
web-designer who wants the page to appear prominent will quickly
go to %200, which then becomes the 'norm'. Are you intending to
go to %400 when that happens? ;-)


I understand that I'm ignorant in many areas but when doing what does
seem perfectly reasonable (eg. including an XML prolog or making the
page XHTML Transitional compliant) fails in IE - which after all is the
dominant browser - then I'm left to wonder what "standards-based" world
I've wandered into?

Andrew Poulos

Jul 21 '05 #12

P: n/a
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:01:01 +1100, Andrew Poulos wrote:
I understand that I'm ignorant in many areas but when doing what does
seem perfectly reasonable (eg. including an XML prolog or making the
page XHTML Transitional compliant) fails in IE - which after all is the
dominant browser - then I'm left to wonder what "standards-based" world
I've wandered into?


One in which Microsoft feels quite free to participate in the
development of a standard which they then ignore. One in which
no UA renders the standard exectly as it should.

You are in (shudder) 'The Real World'..

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
http://www.LensEscapes.com/ Images that escape the mundane
Jul 21 '05 #13

P: n/a
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Andrew Poulos wrote:
Andrew Thompson wrote:
[1] Any use of the term 'I want' when describing a web-page is a bad sign.

If you set the font size at 100%, the *user* gets the size
of text that the *user* wants. Simple instructions on resizing
the text in their browser suffice to allow the user to increase,
or decrease the font size at will.


Would have it been better if I said "the management team that was hired
by the client wants"


No
or "the usability experts evaluation reported that
the user wants"?
Might be. Depends on situation. I don't know what you have on that table,
so I can't answer this question. That is why I asked.

First Rule of Usability? Don't Listen to Users
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010805.html
Let Users Control Font Size
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html

But 140% or 200% for all text is guaranteed to make using your site hard.
Especially on low dpi machines, were IE user might already be using
smallest font setting, so he can't make text smaller.
I didn't mean to imply anything other than I have a
problem I'm required to solve, but yes "I want".
The problem is that you don't tell us what problem you are trying to
solve. URL would tell a lot
[2] Yeah, sure! If this reasonning is followed, then every
web-designer who wants the page to appear prominent will quickly
go to %200, which then becomes the 'norm'. Are you intending to
go to %400 when that happens? ;-)


I understand that I'm ignorant in many areas but when doing what does
seem perfectly reasonable fails in IE - which after all is the
dominant browser - then I'm left to wonder what "standards-based" world
I've wandered into?


The question was about your motive to use 200% (or 140%), not about
weather it works or not.
(eg. including an XML prolog or making the
page XHTML Transitional compliant)


Use HTML if you don't understand XHTML. It is much betteer to do mistakes
using HTML than XHTML.
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Jul 21 '05 #14

P: n/a
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:49:49 +1100, Andrew Poulos <ap*****@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Lauri Raittila wrote:

You get quirks mode in IE with that doctype. Also, XHTML transitional is
very stupid choise. Use strict, and if you want it to work in IE use
HTML4 strict. (or drop xml prolog, and let browsers believe your XHTML
is HTML)


Please pardon my ignorance but why is XHTML transitional such a bad choice?


The fact that anyone defined XHTML transitional in the first place was
pretty stupid. XHTML is based on XML, and presentational markup flies in
the face of what XML is supposed to be. Given that it exists however I
think that to describe using it as "very stupid" is exaggerating a
little.

The idea of "transitional" was to permit (and presumably encourage)
old-style HTML pages to be made standards-compliant without having to
rewrite them completely. There isn't really any reason to use
transitional for any new pages (barring one or two debatable and
marginal cases). And consequently not for any XHTML pages.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 21 '05 #15

P: n/a
"Stephen Poley" <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:9c********************************@4ax.com...
The idea of "transitional" was to permit (and presumably encourage)
old-style HTML pages to be made standards-compliant without having to
rewrite them completely. There isn't really any reason to use
transitional for any new pages (barring one or two debatable and
marginal cases). And consequently not for any XHTML pages.


Using strict can result in pages that don't work in ancient browsers like
NN4. And so I use transitional for all sites that require NN4 support.
Jul 21 '05 #16

P: n/a
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:24:38 -0500, "C A Upsdell"
<cupsdell0311XXX@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote:
"Stephen Poley" <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:9c********************************@4ax.com.. .
The idea of "transitional" was to permit (and presumably encourage)
old-style HTML pages to be made standards-compliant without having to
rewrite them completely. There isn't really any reason to use
transitional for any new pages (barring one or two debatable and
marginal cases). And consequently not for any XHTML pages.


Using strict can result in pages that don't work in ancient browsers like
NN4.


Don't work? As Strict is a very nearly subset of Transitional (the
differenr content model for body and form are the only other
differences I can think of) how can that be? Can you give an example
of a piece of Strict code that causes a page to not work in NN4 where
Transitional would work?

Or do you mean that it looks different rather than it doesn't work?

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #17

P: n/a
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, C A Upsdell wrote:
"Stephen Poley" <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:9c********************************@4ax.com...
The idea of "transitional" was to permit (and presumably encourage)
old-style HTML pages to be made standards-compliant without having to
rewrite them completely. There isn't really any reason to use
transitional for any new pages (barring one or two debatable and
marginal cases).

Right
And consequently not for any XHTML pages.
And there isn't even those marginal cases.
Using strict can result in pages that don't work in ancient browsers like
NN4.


Well, that is different story. HTML Transitional is not very stupid, and
sometimes even makes sence. XHTML transitional is different story.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Jul 21 '05 #18

P: n/a
Lauri Raittila wrote:
Well, that is different story. HTML Transitional is not very stupid, and
sometimes even makes sence. XHTML transitional is different story.


Since XHTML 1.0 sets out to be as close to HTML 4.01 as possible (except for
being an application of XML instead of SGML), it would be rather silly for
it to lack Transitional.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
Jul 21 '05 #19

P: n/a
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, David Dorward wrote:
Lauri Raittila wrote:
Well, that is different story. HTML Transitional is not very stupid, and
sometimes even makes sence. XHTML transitional is different story.


Since XHTML 1.0 sets out to be as close to HTML 4.01 as possible (except for
being an application of XML instead of SGML), it would be rather silly for
it to lack Transitional.


But it still is bad idea to use it.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Jul 21 '05 #20

P: n/a
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:d3********************************@4ax.com...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:24:38 -0500, "C A Upsdell"
<cupsdell0311XXX@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote:
"Stephen Poley" <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:9c********************************@4ax.com. ..
The idea of "transitional" was to permit (and presumably encourage)
old-style HTML pages to be made standards-compliant without having to
rewrite them completely. There isn't really any reason to use
transitional for any new pages (barring one or two debatable and
marginal cases). And consequently not for any XHTML pages.


Using strict can result in pages that don't work in ancient browsers like
NN4.


Don't work? As Strict is a very nearly subset of Transitional (the
differenr content model for body and form are the only other
differences I can think of) how can that be? Can you give an example
of a piece of Strict code that causes a page to not work in NN4 where
Transitional would work?


E.g., NN4 recognizes the LANGUAGE attribute in a SCRIPT tag, but not the
TYPE attribute: but with Strict, TYPE must be used instead of LANGUAGE.
This is not a problem with Transitional, because with it LANGUAGE can still
be used.

In general, there are a number of problem with Strict caused by the fact
that NN4 does not implement certain HTML features which are essential with
Strict.

Jul 21 '05 #21

P: n/a
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:11:55 -0500, "C A Upsdell"
<cupsdell0311XXX@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote:
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:d3********************************@4ax.com.. .
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:24:38 -0500, "C A Upsdell"
<cupsdell0311XXX@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote:
"Stephen Poley" <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:9c********************************@4ax.com ...

The idea of "transitional" was to permit (and presumably encourage)
old-style HTML pages to be made standards-compliant without having to
rewrite them completely. There isn't really any reason to use
transitional for any new pages (barring one or two debatable and
marginal cases). And consequently not for any XHTML pages.

Using strict can result in pages that don't work in ancient browsers like
NN4.
Don't work? As Strict is a very nearly subset of Transitional (the
differenr content model for body and form are the only other
differences I can think of) how can that be? Can you give an example
of a piece of Strict code that causes a page to not work in NN4 where
Transitional would work?


E.g., NN4 recognizes the LANGUAGE attribute in a SCRIPT tag, but not the
TYPE attribute: but with Strict, TYPE must be used instead of LANGUAGE.
This is not a problem with Transitional, because with it LANGUAGE can still
be used.


Hmm, I've just done a test and Netscape 4.7 successfully carried out
the instructions inside a script with type but not language.

IIRC correctly NN4 assumes that all script elements contain JavaScript
unless told otherwise. Are you using VBScript or something else in
your scripts? In which case you have bigger problems than just NN4.
In general, there are a number of problem with Strict caused by the fact
that NN4 does not implement certain HTML features which are essential with
Strict.


Example please?

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #22

P: n/a
C A Upsdell wrote:
E.g., NN4 recognizes the LANGUAGE attribute in a SCRIPT tag, but not the
TYPE attribute: but with Strict, TYPE must be used instead of LANGUAGE.
How is this a problem? The three most common lanugages used for client side
scripting are:

* JavaScript/ECMAScript - well supported and the language that every browser
I've encountered defaults in the absence of any information telling it
otherwise.

* VBScript - IE only and therefore unsuitable for the WWW.

* PerlScript - IE with a plugin only and therefore unsuitable for the WWW.

So you use JavaScipt without a language attribute and Netscape 4 assumes
that you are using ... JavaScript.
In general, there are a number of problem with Strict caused by the fact
that NN4 does not implement certain HTML features which are essential with
Strict.


Do you have any examples better then the above?

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
Jul 21 '05 #23

P: n/a
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, David Dorward wrote:
Lauri Raittila wrote:
Well, that is different story. HTML Transitional is not very stupid, and
sometimes even makes sence. XHTML transitional is different story.


Since XHTML 1.0 sets out to be as close to HTML 4.01 as possible (except for
being an application of XML instead of SGML), it would be rather silly for
it to lack Transitional.>


But it still is bad idea to use it.

I'm sort of following the discussion but what do I do when a page fails
to validate as XHMTL Strict? For example, the embed tag is invalid but
in non-IE browsers there doesn't seem to be a substitute way to play
various common media types.

Should I just "accept" my pages as valid except for the necessary use of
the embed tag?

Andrew Poulos
Jul 21 '05 #24

P: n/a
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:17:13 +1100, Andrew Poulos
<ap*****@hotmail.com> wrote:

I'm sort of following the discussion but what do I do when a page fails
to validate as XHMTL Strict? For example, the embed tag is invalid but
in non-IE browsers there doesn't seem to be a substitute way to play
various common media types.


Only NN4 and lower need the embed tag. Modern browsers all support
Object - but they support a standard version of object, not the MS
version. Hence you need to use different objects (in much the same way
you used object and embed).

But as no version of HTML ever contained embed this isn't really
relevant to a HTML/XHTML Strict vs Transitional debate.

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #25

P: n/a
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
Modern browsers all support
Object - but they support a standard version of object, not the MS
version. Hence you need to use different objects


There is no need to nest an ActiveX and a generic method, IE handles a
properly coded generic method fine.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #26

P: n/a
I'm sort of following the discussion but what do I do when a page fails
to validate as XHMTL Strict? For example, the embed tag is invalid but
in non-IE browsers there doesn't seem to be a substitute way to play
various common media types.


Only NN4 and lower need the embed tag. Modern browsers all support
Object - but they support a standard version of object, not the MS
version. Hence you need to use different objects (in much the same way
you used object and embed).

But as no version of HTML ever contained embed this isn't really
relevant to a HTML/XHTML Strict vs Transitional debate.


Really, so how do I play, say, QuickTime in MZ without an embed tag? Or
to put the question another way where do I find how to use object to
play common media types? I did a google and turned up the satay method
for Flash but the other media escape me.

Andrew Poulos
Jul 21 '05 #27

P: n/a
Andrew Poulos <ap*****@hotmail.com> wrote:
Or to put the question another way where do I find how to use object to
play common media types?


Embedding media is a bad thing:
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.i...htm#audiovideo

Link instead.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #28

P: n/a
Spartanicus wrote:
Andrew Poulos <ap*****@hotmail.com> wrote:

Or to put the question another way where do I find how to use object to
play common media types?

Embedding media is a bad thing:
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.i...htm#audiovideo

Link instead.


Sorry when I referred to "common media types" I was referring to media
such as WMV, WMA, QT, RM, MP3, AIFF... (not to image formats.) I don't
really understand how I can play these with the object tag in MZ or FF.

Andrew Poulos
Jul 21 '05 #29

P: n/a
Andrew Poulos <ap*****@hotmail.com> wrote:
Or to put the question another way where do I find how to use object to
play common media types?
Embedding media is a bad thing:
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.i...htm#audiovideo

Link instead.


Sorry when I referred to "common media types" I was referring to media
such as WMV, WMA, QT, RM, MP3, AIFF... (not to image formats.)


Neither was I.
I don't
really understand how I can play these with the object tag in MZ or FF.


You shouldn't try to, read the document at the link I provided.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #30

P: n/a
Andrew Poulos wrote:
Spartanicus wrote:
Andrew Poulos <ap*****@hotmail.com> wrote:

Or to put the question another way where do I find how to use object
to play common media types?


Embedding media is a bad thing:
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.i...htm#audiovideo

Link instead.

Sorry when I referred to "common media types" I was referring to media
such as WMV, WMA, QT, RM, MP3, AIFF... (not to image formats.) I don't
really understand how I can play these with the object tag in MZ or FF.

Andrew Poulos


The "type" attribute to object must be declared for the different MIME
type. For other media, such as video, you may need to add other param
controls specific to certain players such as WMP or Real Player. Here is
an audio example for a midi:

<object data="urltomidifile.mid" type="audio/x-midi" height="60"
width="144">
<param name="autostart" value="true">
<param name="loop" value="false">
<param name="controls" value="console">
</object>

--
Gus
Jul 21 '05 #31

P: n/a
Andrew Poulos wrote:
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, David Dorward wrote:
Lauri Raittila wrote:

Well, that is different story. HTML Transitional is not very stupid,
and
sometimes even makes sence. XHTML transitional is different story.
Since XHTML 1.0 sets out to be as close to HTML 4.01 as possible
(except for
being an application of XML instead of SGML), it would be rather
silly for
it to lack Transitional.>

But it still is bad idea to use it.


I'm sort of following the discussion but what do I do when a page fails
to validate as XHMTL Strict? For example, the embed tag is invalid but
in non-IE browsers there doesn't seem to be a substitute way to play
various common media types.

Should I just "accept" my pages as valid except for the necessary use of
the embed tag?

Andrew Poulos


Although embed is not W3C compliant but since all browsers do accept it,
it does make some sense to use it. If validation is of concern, then
scripting it is the way to go. For example, if you wish to start an mp3
musicfile right away, render only once, with a console size of 55x200,
then this would be the script for XHTML:
<script type="text/Javascript">
<![CDATA[
document.write('<embed src="' + musicFile + '"');
document.write(' type="audio\/X-mpeg"');
document.write(' autostart="true"');
document.write(' loop="false"');
document.write(' height="55"');
document.write(' width="200"><\/embed>');
]]>
</script>

--
Gus

Jul 21 '05 #32

P: n/a
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:06:13 +0000, Spartanicus wrote:
Embedding media is a bad thing:
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.i...htm#audiovideo


I am confused, I actually thought that the 'do not embed media'
message was relating to both <object> and <embed> elements and
was a message to link directly to the media and let the user's
system decide what to use for rendering/playing it.

I thought you meant to ..
a) describe the nature and size of the media and
b) link to it directly.

I was surprised when the link on your 'image of the media'
(with the play button) led to ..another web page with the
message 'Your video here'.

Assuming an author has done part a), how does part b) *not*
represent 'embedding media'?

I'm afraid I missed something. Can you clarify what is meant?

[ I am particularly interested in putting audio/video into 'web'-pages
delivered off CD. This is not directly related to the same coming
off the web, but I want to make sure I have not missed important
points. ]

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
http://www.LensEscapes.com/ Images that escape the mundane
Jul 21 '05 #33

P: n/a
Andrew Thompson <Se********@www.invalid> wrote:
I was surprised when the link on your 'image of the media'
(with the play button) led to ..another web page with the
message 'Your video here'.

Assuming an author has done part a), how does part b) *not*
represent 'embedding media'?


I didn't want to waste bandwidth by uploading a media file, and I didn't
want the link to do nothing (because of the caption), so I added the
"Your video here" html page assuming that people would understand that
it should be *replaced* by a media file.

But on reflection this is very confusing, I've removed the "Your video
here" page, the link now goes nowhere and I've modified the caption.

Thanks for pointing this out.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #34

P: n/a
*Gus Richter* <gu********@netscape.net>:

Although embed is not W3C compliant but since all browsers do accept it,
it does make some sense to use it. If validation is of concern, then
scripting it is the way to go.


Hiding an invalid part from usual validators doesn't make the containing
document valid.

--
"Opportunity is missed by most people
because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work."
Thomas Alva Edison
Jul 21 '05 #35

P: n/a
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Gus Richter wrote:
Andrew Poulos wrote:
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, David Dorward wrote:

Lauri Raittila wrote:

> Well, that is different story. HTML Transitional is not very stupid,
> and
> sometimes even makes sence. XHTML transitional is different story.
Since XHTML 1.0 sets out to be as close to HTML 4.01 as possible
(except for being an application of XML instead of SGML), it would be
rathersilly for it to lack Transitional.>

I think that it was bad idea to make XHTML1.0 exact clone of HTML4.01. It
would have been much better to also change some very bad parts in HTML4.
(like alternative and multible stylesheet support, which is very
confusing and limited currently)
Although embed is not W3C compliant but since all browsers do accept it,
it does make some sense to use it. If validation is of concern, then
scripting it is the way to go.
Validation is consern when XML, as invalid XML should not be showed.
Scripting is bad idea. Much better use tag soup, and call it HTML4 strict
or transitional.
For example, if you wish to start an mp3
musicfile right away, render only once, with a console size of 55x200,
then this would be the script for XHTML:
Bad idea, I would say...
<script type="text/Javascript">
<![CDATA[
document.write('<embed src="' + musicFile + '"');
document.write(' type="audio\/X-mpeg"');
document.write(' autostart="true"');
document.write(' loop="false"');
document.write(' height="55"');
document.write(' width="200"><\/embed>');
]]>
</script>


So, you managed to get script wrapped so that it would be executed. Too
bad it uses document.write, that often (never?) don't work on XML...

It works when you say your XML is HTML, but that is somehow stupid...
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Jul 21 '05 #36

P: n/a
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Gus Richter wrote:
Andrew Poulos wrote:
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, David Dorward wrote:
>Lauri Raittila wrote:
>
>
>>Well, that is different story. HTML Transitional is not very stupid,
>>and
>>sometimes even makes sence. XHTML transitional is different story.
>
>
>Since XHTML 1.0 sets out to be as close to HTML 4.01 as possible
>(except for being an application of XML instead of SGML), it would be
>rathersilly for it to lack Transitional.>

I think that it was bad idea to make XHTML1.0 exact clone of HTML4.01. It
would have been much better to also change some very bad parts in HTML4.
(like alternative and multible stylesheet support, which is very
confusing and limited currently)

Although embed is not W3C compliant but since all browsers do accept it,
it does make some sense to use it. If validation is of concern, then
scripting it is the way to go.

Validation is consern when XML, as invalid XML should not be showed.
Scripting is bad idea. Much better use tag soup, and call it HTML4 strict
or transitional.

For example, if you wish to start an mp3
musicfile right away, render only once, with a console size of 55x200,
then this would be the script for XHTML:

Bad idea, I would say...

<script type="text/Javascript">
<![CDATA[
document.write('<embed src="' + musicFile + '"');
document.write(' type="audio\/X-mpeg"');
document.write(' autostart="true"');
document.write(' loop="false"');
document.write(' height="55"');
document.write(' width="200"><\/embed>');
]]>
</script>

So, you managed to get script wrapped so that it would be executed. Too
bad it uses document.write, that often (never?) don't work on XML...

It works when you say your XML is HTML, but that is somehow stupid...


It may be because of your language problem, so let me give you a bit of
advice: It is very antagonistic, belittling and insulting to use words
like "managed" in that context and "stupid" in any context. I noticed
that you use these and similar very loosely and often. You either are
doing so intentionally or ignorantly.

Yes I "managed" to do so no matter how "stupid" I am. Please brush up on
your manners! I provided actual alternatives - real life useable
alternatives - much more than can be said about you.

If you say something like "bad idea", give your reason(s) and alternative.
If you say "often (never?)" and "somehow", don't say anything if you
don't know.
I don't remember any solutions/answers provided by you in this
newsgroup. All I recall is negative and belittling comments. Think about it.

--
Gus
Jul 21 '05 #37

P: n/a
Gus Richter wrote:
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Gus Richter wrote:
Andrew Poulos wrote:

Lauri Raittila wrote:
> in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, David Dorward wrote:
>
>
>> Lauri Raittila wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Well, that is different story. HTML Transitional is not very
>>> stupid, and
>>> sometimes even makes sence. XHTML transitional is different story.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since XHTML 1.0 sets out to be as close to HTML 4.01 as possible
>> (except for being an application of XML instead of SGML), it would
>> be rathersilly for it to lack Transitional.>


I think that it was bad idea to make XHTML1.0 exact clone of HTML4.01.
It would have been much better to also change some very bad parts in
HTML4. (like alternative and multible stylesheet support, which is
very confusing and limited currently)

Although embed is not W3C compliant but since all browsers do accept
it, it does make some sense to use it. If validation is of concern,
then scripting it is the way to go.


Validation is consern when XML, as invalid XML should not be showed.
Scripting is bad idea. Much better use tag soup, and call it HTML4
strict or transitional.
For example, if you wish to start an mp3 musicfile right away, render
only once, with a console size of 55x200, then this would be the
script for XHTML:


Bad idea, I would say...

<script type="text/Javascript">
<![CDATA[
document.write('<embed src="' + musicFile + '"');
document.write(' type="audio\/X-mpeg"');
document.write(' autostart="true"');
document.write(' loop="false"');
document.write(' height="55"');
document.write(' width="200"><\/embed>');
]]>
</script>


So, you managed to get script wrapped so that it would be executed.
Too bad it uses document.write, that often (never?) don't work on XML...

It works when you say your XML is HTML, but that is somehow stupid...


It may be because of your language problem, so let me give you a bit of
advice: It is very antagonistic, belittling and insulting to use words
like "managed" in that context and "stupid" in any context. I noticed
that you use these and similar very loosely and often. You either are
doing so intentionally or ignorantly.

Yes I "managed" to do so no matter how "stupid" I am. Please brush up on
your manners! I provided actual alternatives - real life useable
alternatives - much more than can be said about you.

If you say something like "bad idea", give your reason(s) and alternative.
If you say "often (never?)" and "somehow", don't say anything if you
don't know.
I don't remember any solutions/answers provided by you in this
newsgroup. All I recall is negative and belittling comments. Think about
it.


While comments that include "stupid" are indeed inflammatory I don't
think it benefits anyone to counter.

My original problem was, I thought, with the sizing of fonts. Through
the help I received here I realised that my problems were much deeper
than I first suspected. Having said that, it appears that I can't have a
valid XHTML Strict page that plays most (all?) common media types
because it necessitates the use of the embed tag.

I can understand why 'embed' is bad but as yet I've not seen a real
alternative, if in fact one exists.

Andrew Poulos
Jul 21 '05 #38

P: n/a
*Gus Richter* <gu********@netscape.net>:
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Gus Richter wrote:

I think that it was bad idea to make XHTML1.0 exact clone of HTML4.01.
Well, it's a nice proof of concept, but shouldn't have become a real,
advertised specification, especially not with the "fully backwards
compatible" Appendix C approach.
<script type="text/Javascript">
<![CDATA[
document.write('<embed src="' + musicFile + '"');
]]>
</script>
So, you managed to get script wrapped so that it would be executed.
Too bad it uses document.write, that often (never?) don't work on XML...
It works when you say your XML is HTML, but that is somehow stupid...


It is very antagonistic, belittling and insulting to use words like
"managed" in that context and "stupid" in any context.


Maybe, but---like it or not---Lauri is actually right. I think the link to
Hixie's advocacy article on XHTML was already posted in this thread, but
at least in another one of the past weekend---it explains the matter that
so many people like to ignore pretty well, so no need to repeat the
argument in the NG(s) over and over again. It's not so much a stylesheet
matter anyway. (I'm not f'upping to ciwah just because I'm currently not
reading there.)
I provided actual alternatives - real life useable alternatives -


With a little meditation, self-control and training you can learn to get
the nail into the wall with only your head. I prefer using a hammer still.

--
Reality is an illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol.
Jul 21 '05 #39

P: n/a
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:40:40 +0000, Spartanicus wrote:
Andrew Thompson <Se********@www.invalid> wrote:
I was surprised when the link on your 'image of the media'
(with the play button) led to ..another web page with the
message 'Your video here'.
.... I didn't want to waste bandwidth by uploading a media file, and I didn't
want the link to do nothing (because of the caption), so I added the
"Your video here" html page assuming that people would understand that
it should be *replaced* by a media file.
The smart ones probably did. ;-)
But on reflection this is very confusing, I've removed the "Your video
here" page, the link now goes nowhere and I've modified the caption.

Thanks for pointing this out.


Thank *you*. Now even us (slower than the average) folks
can benefit from the advice on the page. :-)

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
http://www.LensEscapes.com/ Images that escape the mundane
Jul 21 '05 #40

P: n/a
Christoph Paeper wrote:
Maybe, but---like it or not---Lauri is actually right.


No maybe about it. Whether he was right or not was not the point. The
question was to be able to accomplish something and I presented one way,
since none were forthcoming, for consideration and not for abuse.

I looked up http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml and shall read it over
several times and do some testing as well. I have picked up on using DOM
Core Methods rather than document.write and I must admit that I have not
used XHTML except for trial and testing so far.

--
Gus
Sorry for the Spam.
Comments such as 'Welcome to Usenet' are not welcome.
The anonimity on Usenet is no excuse for bad manners.
Jul 21 '05 #41

P: n/a
Andrew Poulos wrote:
Having said that, it appears that I can't have a
valid XHTML Strict page that plays most (all?) common media types
because it necessitates the use of the embed tag.


You can write a valid XHTML 1.0 Strict document with embedded (not
meaning using the embed element) media using the object element with
appropriate attributes. Whether a browser renders the media depends on
1. it has good support for the object element,
2. there is a plugin (or other means) for the media to be rendered.

You could add a link to the media file in the contents of the object
element to provide access to the media for users of browsers not
supporting object or without a suitable plugin.
--
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
(Te Deum, 4th cent.)
Jul 21 '05 #42

P: n/a
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Gus Richter wrote:
Lauri Raittila wrote: It may be because of your language problem, so let me give you a bit of
advice: It is very antagonistic, belittling and insulting to use words
like "managed" in that context
That was not intented to be insulting. I was saying that, because people
usually don't get the scripts work right in XHTML...
and "stupid" in any context.
I need to stop using that word alltogether, apparently, as it seems to
impossible say that code is stupid, but that is taken as if coder is
stupid. It is not bad to say in Finnish that "mutta se on jotenkin
tyhmää"

In fact, my dictionary gives example: Onpa tyhmä kysymys - What a stupid
question.
I noticed
that you use these and similar very loosely and often. You either are
doing so intentionally or ignorantly.
I use language that is not my own, and I really don't have energy to
think if every word in my posts can't be missunderstood. It can be
surprising sometimes. Anyway, it is much better to use your energy to
interpret messages so that they won't insult you.
Yes I "managed" to do so no matter how "stupid" I am.
Well, I never said you stupid. I said that it is somehow stupid to make
script that will only work if you say that your XHTML is HTML. Somehow it
makes more sence to use HTML in first place, don't you think?
Please brush up on
your manners! I provided actual alternatives - real life useable
alternatives - much more than can be said about you.
Your problem is that your real life alternatives were not good idea. I
would have given that advice myself, if it had made any sence.
If you say something like "bad idea", give your reason(s) and alternative.
I posted that link to Ians very good page 2 days ago, it has reasons why
your thing don't work. Here again:
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
If you say "often (never?)" and "somehow", don't say anything if you
don't know.
Well, "often" is at least Opera. That is the other from 2 big browsers
that do XHTML. "Somehow" refers to all this talk about it is not good
idea to use XHTML as it was HTML and then lie that it is HTML.
I don't remember any solutions/answers provided by you in this
newsgroup.
I generally hate flash and all other embedded content, so I don't have
motive to go look for solutions. Here is one for flash:
http://damowmow.com/playground/demos/flash/001.html
Comment: http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1081798064&count=1

I have no idea if it works on any other embedded content. In fact, nobody
asked how embed could be avoided when used with this/that content
All I recall is negative and belittling comments. Think about it.


Some things just deserve negative comments. Like my use of language in
the previous post?

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Jul 21 '05 #43

P: n/a
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:34:51 +0000, Spartanicus <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
Modern browsers all support
Object - but they support a standard version of object, not the MS
version. Hence you need to use different objects


There is no need to nest an ActiveX and a generic method, IE handles a
properly coded generic method fine.


In my tests it depends on the type of media being used, the version of
IE and probably the phase of the moon. I've had a properly coded
object element repeatedly crash IE.

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #44

P: n/a
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
Modern browsers all support
Object - but they support a standard version of object, not the MS
version. Hence you need to use different objects


There is no need to nest an ActiveX and a generic method, IE handles a
properly coded generic method fine.


In my tests it depends on the type of media being used, the version of
IE and probably the phase of the moon. I've had a properly coded
object element repeatedly crash IE.


We want proof :)

I'd expect that the cause of crashes is more likely to be the
application that is invoked to handle the media (MS MediaPlayer is
notorious in this regard), rather than the html.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #45

P: n/a
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:02:29 +0000, Spartanicus <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
Modern browsers all support
Object - but they support a standard version of object, not the MS
version. Hence you need to use different objects

There is no need to nest an ActiveX and a generic method, IE handles a
properly coded generic method fine.


In my tests it depends on the type of media being used, the version of
IE and probably the phase of the moon. I've had a properly coded
object element repeatedly crash IE.


We want proof :)

I'd expect that the cause of crashes is more likely to be the
application that is invoked to handle the media (MS MediaPlayer is
notorious in this regard), rather than the html.


I've checked my notes and rerun the test and IE doesn't crash, at
least IE6 doesn't, maybe IE5 did. But IE does fail to render the
movie.

<OBJECT type="application/x-shockwave-flash" DATA="movie.swf"
WIDTH="220" HEIGHT="160">
<p>If you can read this then you're seeing the fallback.</p>
</OBJECT>

A simple flash object like this will never load in IE and won't
display the fall back either. It will just keep on loading something
forever.

Adding <PARAM NAME="MOVIE" VALUE="movie.swf"> will make IE behave.
Still valid but shouldn't really be needed.

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #46

P: n/a
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:gd********************************@4ax.com...

Using strict can result in pages that don't work in ancient browsers
like
NN4.

Don't work? As Strict is a very nearly subset of Transitional (the
differenr content model for body and form are the only other
differences I can think of) how can that be? Can you give an example
of a piece of Strict code that causes a page to not work in NN4 where
Transitional would work?


E.g., NN4 recognizes the LANGUAGE attribute in a SCRIPT tag, but not the
TYPE attribute: but with Strict, TYPE must be used instead of LANGUAGE.
This is not a problem with Transitional, because with it LANGUAGE can
still
be used.


Hmm, I've just done a test and Netscape 4.7 successfully carried out
the instructions inside a script with type but not language.


I have looked into this more deeply, hence the delay in responding.

One of the problems with NN4 is that it is not a monolith: Netscape issued
many versions to fix bugs, fix security issues, add features (such as
limited support for PNG in 4.04), and (in the case of 4.5) improve standards
compliance. If your experience goes back that far then you likely remember
that, although updates tended to fix problems, they also tended to create
new problems, or re-introduce problems that had been fixed earlier. You may
also remember that, at any given time, a number of NN4 versions were in
common use (plus NN2 and NN3), so that one could not design for any
particular version: rather, one had to design for a range of versions, each
with its own particular problems.

To cope with this issue I eventually adopted the following strategy: when I
found a Netscape problem for which there was no effective workaround, I
adopted design rules for myself to avoid the problems. For example: don't
use PNG (which was not supported until 4.04, and was not even supported in
the version of 4.08 customized for my local cable ISP); don't use
document.write except near the bottom of a page (since using document.write
near the top of a page for other than small strings resulted in a Netscape
bug being triggered further down); don't use the SCRIPT tag too often on a
page (because, on some pages, when there were too many SCRIPT tags, and both
the TYPE and LANGUAGE attributes were used, JavaScript in one of the later
SCRIPT tags would not be executed); AND ALSO, always include the LANGUAGE
attribute for a SCRIPT tag (because, in some NN versions, failure to include
this attribute would result in JavaScript not being executed); etc., etc.,
etc.

I believe you when you say you did not find a problem in omitting the
LANGUAGE attribute with NN4.7. I also tested this with 4.08 and 4.80, and I
did not find a problem with them. However, I know that I did have a problem
with some NN4 versions -- and no, I never kept a record of which versions,
so I can't cite them -- for which reason I had to adopt the rule to always
include the LANGUAGE attribute.

What then does this imply about whether pages will work in NN4 when a Strict
DOCTYPE is used? Especially in view of the fact that NN4 is fairly uncommon
these days, and that the varieties of NN4 in use are likely much more
limited.

What I have done to date was to keep the same rules for NN4 today that I
used years ago. Which means that support of NN4 meant no use of Strict.
Perhaps I am wrong in doing this. Perhaps I should limit my support to
NN4.08 (which today appears to be used more than any other version of NN4),
and 4.80 (the final version of NN4 that Netscape issued), throwing away the
rules that do not appear to apply to these versions. I would certainly like
to use Strict all the time. I will have to think about this more before I
make a decision.

Jul 21 '05 #47

P: n/a
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
I've checked my notes and rerun the test and IE doesn't crash, at
least IE6 doesn't, maybe IE5 did. But IE does fail to render the
movie.

<OBJECT type="application/x-shockwave-flash" DATA="movie.swf"
WIDTH="220" HEIGHT="160">
<p>If you can read this then you're seeing the fallback.</p>
</OBJECT>
Doesn't crash in IE5.5.
A simple flash object like this will never load in IE and won't
display the fall back either. It will just keep on loading something
forever.

Adding <PARAM NAME="MOVIE" VALUE="movie.swf"> will make IE behave.
Correct.
Still valid but shouldn't really be needed.


The spec doesn't specify how a client application should be initialized,
it does require a UA not to attempt to render the object until it has
parsed possible param elements, if present, those initialization
parameters should be supplied to the application handling the rendering.

IE doesn't as you said need embed. I'm also not used to referring to
Flash as "Media", IE doesn't need the param element to embed audio
and/or video formats handled by MP.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #48

P: n/a

The spec doesn't specify how a client application should be initialized,
it does require a UA not to attempt to render the object until it has
parsed possible param elements, if present, those initialization
parameters should be supplied to the application handling the rendering.

IE doesn't as you said need embed. I'm also not used to referring to
Flash as "Media", IE doesn't need the param element to embed audio
and/or video formats handled by MP.


Ok, please excuse my ignorance. In the following XHTML Strict page with
this code could you please point out or explain:
1. Whether I need the XML prolog
2. Whether I need the meta tag and, if I do, if it's correct
3. How to play the aiff in IE without the param
4. How to play the aiff in MZ without the embed (I realise that the
embed makes the XHTML not strict compliant).

I've been trying to "solve" this issue for days and I can't seem to make
some real progress.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title>AIFF Test</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
</head>
<body>
<div style="visibility:hidden;">
<object classid="CLSID:22d6f312-b0f6-11d0-94ab-0080c74c7e95"

codebase="http://activex.microsoft.com/activex/controls/mplayer/en/nsmp2inf.cab#Version=6,4,5,715"
standby="Loading..."
type="application/x-oleobject">
<param name="FileName" value="media/aif_sample.aif" />

<embed type="audio/x-aiff"
hidden="true"
src="media/aif_sample.aif">
</embed>
</object>
</div>
</body>
</html>
Andrew Poulos
Jul 21 '05 #49

P: n/a
Crossposted and f-up set to: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html for
going off topic in ciwas.

Andrew Poulos <ap*****@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ok, please excuse my ignorance. In the following XHTML Strict page with
this code could you please point out or explain:
1. Whether I need the XML prolog
It's not strictly needed, more importantly it kicks IE into quirks mode.

Note that serving xhtml on the web is frowned upon by a lot of people
here, myself included, both when served with the correct mime type, and
when served as text/html, albeit for different reasons. This also
applies to serving xhtml to clients that claim that they can handle it.
I'd recommend serving HTML 4.01 Strict.
2. Whether I need the meta tag and, if I do, if it's correct
Using a meta tag to indicate encoding is a sub optimal solution, specify
the encoding you use via a http header by configuring your server.
3. How to play the aiff in IE without the param
4. How to play the aiff in MZ without the embed (I realise that the
embed makes the XHTML not strict compliant).
Embedding media is bad practice, link instead:
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/embed.htm
<object classid="CLSID:22d6f312-b0f6-11d0-94ab-0080c74c7e95"

codebase="http://activex.microsoft.com/activex/controls/mplayer/en/nsmp2inf.cab#Version=6,4,5,715"
standby="Loading..."
type="application/x-oleobject">
<param name="FileName" value="media/aif_sample.aif" />

<embed type="audio/x-aiff"
hidden="true"
src="media/aif_sample.aif">
</embed>
</object>


This fails on a number of levels, the usage of ActiveX, usage of the
embed element, no fall back provided etc.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #50

53 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.