469,314 Members | 2,007 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,314 developers. It's quick & easy.

non-breaking hyphens??

is there a non-breaking hyphen in HTML?? for example, so a phone no.
falls all on one line.. as in..

1-800-444-5454... (and is not broken into two lines if phone no. occurs
near end of a line..)

(searched for 'hyphen' in FAQ pg, didn't find anything..)

thank you.. Frances


Jul 23 '05
87 5754
Op Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:56:34 +0100, schreef Toby Inkster
<us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk>:
Barbara de Zoete wrote:
Op Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:56:17 +0100, schreef Toby Inkster
<us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk>:
Though as I pointed out the UK is not "doing things differently from
everybody else" when it comes to driving on the left. It's doing things
the same as plenty of other contries, including Ireland, Japan, India,
Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, most of sub-Saharan Africa, most of
South-East Asia and parts of South America.


Except for Japan, remind me of the (former) terratory of the British
Colonies, if you please. As far as I can see, you just gave a pretty
accurate descrition of the former British Empire.


Well, Macau has never been under British rule -- it was Portugese until
1999 and is now a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic
of China. Then drive on the left there. The US Virgin Islands were a
Dutch territory, which was then sold to the US. They drive on the left
there. Most of Indonesia has never been under British rule (one or two
provinces were briefly). They drive on the left there.

Converesly, Canada and the USA have been under British rule. Gibraltar is
*currently* under British rule. They all drive on the right.


So with the exception of a few milion people, still a bilion or so are
part of the former empire. I still see some patern arising from that.

--
Barbara

PretLetters <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/>
Webontwerp <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
Zweefvliegen <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>
Jul 23 '05 #51
Andy Dingley wrote:
Did <nobr> or (or I guess <NOBR>) ever make it into any W3 DTD
proposals, or was it only ever Netscape ?


It's supported by many UAs (not just Netscape), but never part of any W3C
recommendation.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 23 '05 #52
Barbara de Zoete wrote:
So with the exception of a few milion people, still a bilion or so are
part of the former empire. I still see some patern arising from that.


Japan and Indonesia together have a population of 360 Million -- six times
the population of the UK.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 23 '05 #53
JRS: In article <1a********************************@4ax.com>, dated
Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:20:27, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> posted :
Now you'll tell me that,
although so firmly wedded to the Imperial system of measurement (in
spite of 1776), Americans do not use or understand the stone of 14
pounds avoirdupois.
Allow me to enlighten you: Americans by and large do *not* know that
Brits have a unit of weight called the stone, that it is the usual
primary unit used to measure the weight of a person, and that it is
equal to 14 pounds. In fact, when "Queer Eye - UK Edition", as it's
titled here, is broadcast, explanatory text appears in subtitles when
Britishisms are used that are largely unknown here. When someone
mentions having lost 2 stone 7, a subtitle explains that this is 35
pounds.


Just as I predicted. The British are not entirely ignorant of the
depths of American ignorance - which extend to not knowing how much the
British know about what the Americans do not know.
FYI our liquid measures are not equal to the like-named Imperial
measures.


An inaccurate statement. Some are correct, the acre-foot for example,
but others, such as the gallon, are the wrong size.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
Jul 23 '05 #54
JRS: In article <i2********************************@4ax.com>, dated
Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:12:57, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> posted :
Dr John Stockton <sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
IMHO, <phone> is not the right word; or not always the right word for
the desired effect.

In XML, it is indeed useful to be able to specify telephone numbers,
with sub-classes such as land-line or mobile, speech or fax, etc.; but
ISTM that in HTML, where the balance of actual concern for presentation
and for meaning is different, there should first be an element for
properly treating numbers in general (including +5 -2.345 1.234E-5
1,234,567.89 1.234.567,89 and space-containing numbers) - and that
<phone> would only be justified if telephone-specific behaviour was
needed, which IMHO is probably not the case.


A phone number isn't really a number, though. It's a code that happens
to consist, by an arbitrary convention, entirely of digits. Numbers
convey a quantity, a value, magnitude. Telephone numbers don't.


That's of no great significance for HTML. What truly matters is how
they should be formatted. In a medium designed to be human-readable,
they should never be entirely digits; there should at least be spaces
present. Numbers in the local book are given as "(020) #### ####"; and
that is the form in which they should appear on a Web page, if
international access is not a consideration - not "020########".

Unless one has <USphone>, <UKphone>, <FRphone>, ..., <ISphone>, ...,
ISTM that the only generally valid formatting is to convert each
whitespace between characters to a single non-breaking space - which may
well be what <nobr> does - and that the same treatment is useful in
other cases, not just telephone or other numbers.

Then <phone> may be justified as doing exactly the same (hence cheap to
provide), but carrying an implication of meaning.

Care is needed : is exactly "020 #### ####" a telephone number, or is it
not? It is diallable, but it will not cause a telephone to ring
(AFAIK). Is "WHI ####", where each # represents a particular digit, a
telephone number? It used to be perhaps the best-known one in the
country, after 0 & 999.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ??*@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.

Food expiry ambiguities: <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/date2k-3.htm#Food>
Jul 23 '05 #55
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 23:02:40 +0100, George Lund <ge****@lund.co.uk>
wrote:
[...]
...If we're going to drift OT anyway I feel at liberty to
point out that in Britain we've been using decimal points
rather than commas since at least John Napier in the 1619.


Sure; and you are at some instances driving on the wrong side of the
road too; even as seen from your own standards.

<http://www.humorsajten.com/ar/bilder/rondell.htm>

Sorry for that page being in Swedish as it comes to the language but
what it says in the last couple of lines is...

"English people are crazy, no wonder that God placed them
on an island of their own" :-)

--
Rex
Jul 23 '05 #56
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:20:27 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
Allow me to enlighten you: Americans by and large do *not* know that
Brits have a unit of weight called the stone, that it is the usual
primary unit used to measure the weight of a person, and that it is
equal to 14 pounds.


You may be right on that, but I do recall a televised report from a
match between "Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay)" and an opponent that I do
not recall. The showdown was on american soil for sure and I will never
forget that the TV reporter did announce the weight of the combattants
in stones :-)

--
Rex
Jul 23 '05 #57
"Malcolm Dew-Jones" <yf***@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
The "number" to reach a specific phone may require meta information. An
extension is a simple example. The extension number is required to
complete the connection to the remote telephone, but the numbers cannot be
entered as part of the initial set of numbers to start the call.


Sure they can, if the instruction set includes a "wait N seconds"
command, as it does for e.g. most modems.

Flippancy aside, I'm not sure why you call an extension meta
information. It seems to me to be part of the phone number.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 23 '05 #58
Dr John Stockton <sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
JRS: In article <i2********************************@4ax.com>, dated
Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:12:57, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> posted :
Dr John Stockton <sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
IMHO, <phone> is not the right word; or not always the right word for
the desired effect.

In XML, it is indeed useful to be able to specify telephone numbers,
with sub-classes such as land-line or mobile, speech or fax, etc.; but
ISTM that in HTML, where the balance of actual concern for presentation
and for meaning is different, there should first be an element for
properly treating numbers in general (including +5 -2.345 1.234E-5
1,234,567.89 1.234.567,89 and space-containing numbers) - and that
<phone> would only be justified if telephone-specific behaviour was
needed, which IMHO is probably not the case.


A phone number isn't really a number, though. It's a code that happens
to consist, by an arbitrary convention, entirely of digits. Numbers
convey a quantity, a value, magnitude. Telephone numbers don't.


That's of no great significance for HTML. What truly matters is how
they should be formatted.


Semantics are exactly what's significant for HTML. Therefore, to mark
something up as a number that isn't a number would be incorrect.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 23 '05 #59
Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
"Malcolm Dew-Jones" <yf***@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
The "number" to reach a specific phone may require meta information. An
extension is a simple example. The extension number is required to
complete the connection to the remote telephone, but the numbers cannot be
entered as part of the initial set of numbers to start the call.


Sure they can, if the instruction set includes a "wait N seconds"
command, as it does for e.g. most modems.

Flippancy aside, I'm not sure why you call an extension meta
information. It seems to me to be part of the phone number.


There a couple of ways of looking at the question of whether the phone
number plus the extension together are *a* phone number. If you enter
the user name "hellothere" to log onto your computer, and "letmein" to
enter a chat room, is it correct to say that "hellothereletmein" is
your user name for purposes of getting to the chat room?

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 23 '05 #60
Dr John Stockton <sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
JRS: In article <1a********************************@4ax.com>, dated
Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:20:27, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> posted :
Now you'll tell me that,
although so firmly wedded to the Imperial system of measurement (in
spite of 1776), Americans do not use or understand the stone of 14
pounds avoirdupois.
Allow me to enlighten you: Americans by and large do *not* know that
Brits have a unit of weight called the stone, that it is the usual
primary unit used to measure the weight of a person, and that it is
equal to 14 pounds. In fact, when "Queer Eye - UK Edition", as it's
titled here, is broadcast, explanatory text appears in subtitles when
Britishisms are used that are largely unknown here. When someone
mentions having lost 2 stone 7, a subtitle explains that this is 35
pounds.


Just as I predicted. The British are not entirely ignorant of the
depths of American ignorance - which extend to not knowing how much the
British know about what the Americans do not know.
FYI our liquid measures are not equal to the like-named Imperial
measures.


An inaccurate statement. Some are correct, the acre-foot


The acre-foot is a liquid measure? For measuring what, liquid
fertilizer? (I suspect you overlooked the word "liquid" when I used it
above.)
for example,
but others, such as the gallon, are the wrong size.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 23 '05 #61
Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:20:27 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
Allow me to enlighten you: Americans by and large do *not* know that
Brits have a unit of weight called the stone, that it is the usual
primary unit used to measure the weight of a person, and that it is
equal to 14 pounds.


You may be right on that, but I do recall a televised report from a
match between "Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay)" and an opponent that I do
not recall. The showdown was on american soil for sure and I will never
forget that the TV reporter did announce the weight of the combattants
in stones :-)


I would *guess* that that had to do with the nationality of the
broadcaster and that of his audience, not that of the competitors or
the location of the arena.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 23 '05 #62
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:39:11 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote:
You may be right on that, but I do recall a televised report from a
match between "Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay)" and an opponent that I do
not recall. The showdown was on american soil for sure and I will never
forget that the TV reporter did announce the weight of the combattants
in stones :-)


I would *guess* that that had to do with the nationality of the
broadcaster and that of his audience, not that of the competitors or
the location of the arena.


.... which would bring us back to the point!

Jul 23 '05 #63
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:20:36 +0100, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Just because you drive on the right side of the road, you should not
think that you drive on the correct side of the road - note that you do
not drive in the right side of the car, but in the left side. Most
people are right-handed; driving as in the UK, the dominant right hand
is scarcely distracted from the vital task of steering, leaving the left
hand free to fumble with the gear lever, handbrake, radio, cigarette
lighter, passenger, ... .
In the US we are capable of learning how to drive left-handed. :P [1]
Television made for the international market is not a reliable guide,
since it panders to the limitations of the prime customers - the USA is
undoubtedly still the country with the greatest product of call-
themselves-English-speakers times average-disposable-income, and we are
currently still willing to support the USA's chief export product, which
is green paper or its nominal equivalent.
Thanks for buying all those hamburgers, man. Yet I still don't have health
insurance...
Now you'll tell me that,
although so firmly wedded to the Imperial system of measurement (in
spite of 1776), Americans do not use or understand the stone of 14
pounds avoirdupois.
Well. One, I never have heard anyone, in my life, refer to someone's
"stones" other than in connection to a medical problem or referring to
their testicles. Two, I cannot even pronounce avoirdupois, it always comes
out Auberjonois. Three, I'm not married. ;)
But the UK is, and has for some while been, entirely metric except for
what directly affects the ordinary uneducated person - retail beer and
milk, personal size in common parlance, and distances & speeds on the
roads - the matters that even politicians (below the upper grades) have
to understand.
In the US, we use pounds, ounces, pints, etc. for nearly all groceries.
Beer is still sold in pints, and it should be. Yet I buy vodka in the 1.75
liter bottle, and carbonated soda in 2 liter bottles. Height and weight
are generally in feet/inches and pounds respectively in most contexts. I
thought you limeys used kmH for speeds, shows what I know. I live somewhat
close to Canada, so I do see km every now and again.
In particular, the medical profession and civil engineering are entirely
metric here.


Can't speak to civil engineering, but the medical community in the US does
use metrics nearly, if not totally, exclusively.

Sounds like we are more alike than different. Except for the lifts and the
lorrys and the draughts and that stuff. And I never had a fag my whole
life but my dad once spanked my fanny. Ok I take it back...
[1] Refers to an old joke. It can be used for any pair of adversaries, but
here it'll be Harvard and Yale. The two men, wearing their respective
school logos, are in the men's room. After finishing up, the Yale man
walks to the sink to wash up. The Harvard mand goes directly to the door.

The Yale man speaks up, "At Yale, we wash our hands after urinating."

The Harvard man calls back before exiting, "At Harvard we don't piss on
our hands."
Jul 23 '05 #64
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:30:20 -0400, Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
"Malcolm Dew-Jones" <yf***@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
The "number" to reach a specific phone may require meta information. An
extension is a simple example. The extension number is required to
complete the connection to the remote telephone, but the numbers cannot
be
entered as part of the initial set of numbers to start the call.


Sure they can, if the instruction set includes a "wait N seconds"
command, as it does for e.g. most modems.

Flippancy aside, I'm not sure why you call an extension meta
information. It seems to me to be part of the phone number.

As a boy, to dial my home from within my town we needed to dial 1234.
(Made up this number, my father hates phone calls.)

To call from a neighboring town, I would dial 555-1234.

To call from four towns away, 1-555-1234.

To call from quite far away, 1-413-555-1234.

So are 1, 413 and 555 meta data, or is it part of the number? Depends, I
guess. But what they really are is this: 1 tells the phone system that the
call isn't local so it switches into long-distance mode. 413 tells the
system that we're not dialing the current zone, but the western half of
Massachusetts. 555 tells the system we are looking for this particular
exchange in either the current zone or the one we just told it. And then
the last 4 digits refer, within that context, to the line running into my
father's house.

My opinion? They're not meta data, they're separate bits of actual data
that may or may not be needed depending on the circumstances.
Jul 23 '05 #65
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:57:14 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

[...]

ObHTML: it would be nice if HTML had a <phone> element, partly because it
would let speech browsers read a phone number as a sequence of digits,


Would the tel: URI scheme be of any help, or would it only add to the
confusion?

Nick

--
Nick Theodorakis
ni**************@hotmail.com
contact form:
http://theodorakis.net/contact.html
Jul 23 '05 #66
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:09:57 +0100, Toby Inkster
<us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
Did <nobr> or (or I guess <NOBR>) ever make it into any W3 DTD
proposals, or was it only ever Netscape ?


It's supported by many UAs (not just Netscape), but never part of any W3C
recommendation.


It seems to be supported by recent browsers on my machine: IE6,
Moz1.7, and Opera 7.5

Nick

--
Nick Theodorakis
ni**************@hotmail.com
contact form:
http://theodorakis.net/contact.html
Jul 23 '05 #67
Stan Brown (th************@fastmail.fm) wrote:
: "Malcolm Dew-Jones" <yf***@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote in
: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
: >The "number" to reach a specific phone may require meta information. An
: >extension is a simple example. The extension number is required to
: >complete the connection to the remote telephone, but the numbers cannot be
: >entered as part of the initial set of numbers to start the call.

: Sure they can, if the instruction set includes a "wait N seconds"
: command, as it does for e.g. most modems.

: Flippancy aside, I'm not sure why you call an extension meta
: information. It seems to me to be part of the phone number.

The meta information is the fact that you must wait before entering the
final part of the number. You'll notice that "wait N seconds" is not a
phone number, it is instead an instruction on how to use the number.

I don't think that all the modem commands you might need (at least some of
the time) to successfully make a connection are part of any standard
telephone number scheme.

Jul 23 '05 #68
Neal (ne*****@yahoo.com) wrote:
: On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:30:20 -0400, Stan Brown
: <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:

: > "Malcolm Dew-Jones" <yf***@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote in
: > comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
: >> The "number" to reach a specific phone may require meta information. An
: >> extension is a simple example. The extension number is required to
: >> complete the connection to the remote telephone, but the numbers cannot
: >> be
: >> entered as part of the initial set of numbers to start the call.
: >
: > Sure they can, if the instruction set includes a "wait N seconds"
: > command, as it does for e.g. most modems.
: >
: > Flippancy aside, I'm not sure why you call an extension meta
: > information. It seems to me to be part of the phone number.
: >
: As a boy, to dial my home from within my town we needed to dial 1234.
: (Made up this number, my father hates phone calls.)

: To call from a neighboring town, I would dial 555-1234.

: To call from four towns away, 1-555-1234.

: To call from quite far away, 1-413-555-1234.

: So are 1, 413 and 555 meta data, or is it part of the number? Depends, I
: guess. But what they really are is this: 1 tells the phone system that the
: call isn't local so it switches into long-distance mode. 413 tells the
: system that we're not dialing the current zone, but the western half of
: Massachusetts. 555 tells the system we are looking for this particular
: exchange in either the current zone or the one we just told it. And then
: the last 4 digits refer, within that context, to the line running into my
: father's house.

: My opinion? They're not meta data, they're separate bits of actual data
: that may or may not be needed depending on the circumstances.

I would agree they are not meta data. In this case the meta data would be
the instructions on when to use each number. Sometimes, as in your
example, the instructions are well known and can be left out, but in some
other situations the telephone "number" needs to include the instructions
on how to use the number.
Jul 23 '05 #69
ni**************@hotmail.com (Nick Theodorakis) wrote:
ObHTML: it would be nice if HTML had a <phone> element, partly
because it would let speech browsers read a phone number as a
sequence of digits,


Would the tel: URI scheme be of any help, or would it only add to the
confusion?


It would be a different dimension. If it actually worked - and maybe some
special browsers already support it - then it could be used to make any
piece of text (or inline elements in general) a link that refers to a
telephone number. Much like people nowadays use things like
<a href="mailto:jk******@cs.tut.fi">Jukka Korpela</a>
or even
<a href="mailto:jk******@cs.tut.fi">Email me!</a>
they could use
<a href="tel:+358408448617">Jukka Korpela</a>
or even
<a href="tel:+358408448617">Call me!</a>

Although such usage is generally clueless (for practical reasons, a name
should point to a personal home page, or some personal info, or to
nothing), it is essential that the URL scheme of a link does not dictate
the interpretation of the link text. Admittedly, an educated browser
could, by heuristics, decide that in
<a href="tel:+358408448617">+358 40 844 8617</a>
the link text is a telephone number and render it according to special
rules. In addition to speaking the digits in speech synthesis, this could
mean using digit glyphs that differ from the font used otherwise as well
as treating the spaces "almost non-breaking". (In good typography, the
breakability of spaces isn't an on/off thing. In things like phone
numbers, line breaks should be avoided, but not at all costs.)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 23 '05 #70
Op Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:21:40 +0100, schreef Toby Inkster
<us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk>:
Barbara de Zoete wrote:
So with the exception of a few milion people, still a bilion or so are
part of the former empire. I still see some patern arising from that.


Japan and Indonesia together have a population of 360 Million -- six
times
the population of the UK.


So I refrase: just a few countries out of dozens. I still see a pattern.
--
Barbara

PretLetters <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/>
Webontwerp <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
Zweefvliegen <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>
Jul 23 '05 #71
In article <f8********************************@4ax.com>, Harlan Messinger writes:
Dr John Stockton <sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:

FYI our liquid measures are not equal to the like-named Imperial
measures.


An inaccurate statement. Some are correct, the acre-foot


The acre-foot is a liquid measure? For measuring what, liquid
fertilizer?


Large amounts of water, mostly. For instance, the amount of water stored
behind a dam. If you know the surface area of the reservoir is twenty
acres, and three inches of rain falls, the amount of water added to the
reservoir is going to be five acre-feet, not counting runoff.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.

Jul 23 '05 #72
JRS: In article <1u********************************@4ax.com>, dated
Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:32:41, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> posted :
That's of no great significance for HTML. What truly matters is how
they should be formatted.


Semantics are exactly what's significant for HTML. Therefore, to mark
something up as a number that isn't a number would be incorrect.


Indeed. But to treat as a number something that needs to be treated as
a number but happens not to be a number is perfectly in order.

That is why, after considering how numbers should be treated, one should
consider whether there is a sufficient set of non-numbers with
substantially similar formatting requirements (ISTM that there is), and,
if a common set of requirements is satisfactory, implement that with a
suitably general tag - something like <nobr>, which can be used wherever
it fits, rather than <phone> which should be reserved for (any of the
wide variety of) phone numbers.

Looking backwards, <table> should have been something more generic, such
as <grid>, with optional type=layout / type=data / type=??.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Jul 23 '05 #73
JRS: In article <gr********************************@4ax.com>, dated
Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:52:24, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> posted :

<http://www.humorsajten.com/ar/bilder/rondell.htm>

Sorry for that page being in Swedish as it comes to the language but
what it says in the last couple of lines is...

"English people are crazy, no wonder that God placed them
on an island of their own" :-)


That is as bad as the not-entirely-unpractical habit of considering all
Scandinavians to be equivalent.

On the island of Great Britain, one also finds, in addition to
indigenous English, indigenous Scots, Welsh, and other Celts (including
semi-indigenous Irish).

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME ©
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Jul 23 '05 #74
JRS: In article <f8********************************@4ax.com>, dated
Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:37:41, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> posted :
An inaccurate statement. Some are correct, the acre-foot


The acre-foot is a liquid measure? For measuring what, liquid
fertilizer? (I suspect you overlooked the word "liquid" when I used it
above.)
for example,
but others, such as the gallon, are the wrong size.

If you consider water to be a fertiliser, yes; but for general
fertilisers, the acre-foot is too large.

It is used on connection with irrigation, dams, and suchlike.

For widespread water, it is more easily understood by many than cubic
metres, tonnes, cubic feet, cubic yards, tons, etc.; and a more
practical size. In its field, it is a good Imperial unit, though the
majority of the world manages quite happily with cubic metres.

The acre-foot can be found, after acre, in the works originated by one
Webster.

Actually, it may not have been significantly used in the UK; but the US
unit is the same size as a UK one would have been.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk / ??*********@physics.org ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SoRFC1036)
Jul 23 '05 #75
Dr John Stockton wrote:
Looking backwards, <table> should have been something more generic,
such as <grid>, with optional type=layout / type=data / type=??.


And what would be the point of <grid type="layout"> for for non-visual
user-agents?

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 23 '05 #76
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
[tel: URLs] would be a different dimension. If it actually worked - and
maybe some special browsers already support it


Opera can be configured to launch an external application for tel: URLs. I
would be highly surprised if IE/win and Mozilla (w/ Protozilla) can't.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 23 '05 #77
Toby Inkster <us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message news:<pa****************************@tobyinkster.c o.uk>...
Barbara de Zoete wrote:
Op Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:56:17 +0100, schreef Toby Inkster
<us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk>:
Though as I pointed out the UK is not "doing things differently from
everybody else" when it comes to driving on the left. It's doing things
the same as plenty of other contries, including Ireland, Japan, India,
Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, most of sub-Saharan Africa, most of
South-East Asia and parts of South America.


Except for Japan, remind me of the (former) terratory of the British
Colonies, if you please. As far as I can see, you just gave a pretty
accurate descrition of the former British Empire.


Well, Macau has never been under British rule -- it was Portugese until
1999 and is now a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic
of China. Then drive on the left there. The US Virgin Islands were a
Dutch territory, which was then sold to the US. They drive on the left
there. Most of Indonesia has never been under British rule (one or two
provinces were briefly). They drive on the left there.

Converesly, Canada and the USA have been under British rule. Gibraltar is
*currently* under British rule. They all drive on the right.


Interestingly enough we started driving on the left, but it soon became
clear that as Spain was larger, adjacent and land communications OK
that it would cause a problem, so the Governor of the day, being a far
sighted fellow changed the rules.

--
Jim Watt
www.gibnet.com
Jul 23 '05 #78
JRS: In article <3Y*********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att
..net>, dated Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:59:27, seen in news:comp.infosystems.ww
w.authoring.html, Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> posted :
Dr John Stockton wrote:
Looking backwards, <table> should have been something more generic,
such as <grid>, with optional type=layout / type=data / type=??.


And what would be the point of <grid type="layout"> for for non-visual
user-agents?


Exactly the same as <table> used for layout, except that it can be made
clear that it is not a data table.

Exactly the same as using CSS or other means for positioning on a page.

AFAICS, a non-visual system must either ignore layout, describe layout
verbally, or compromise.

The notation does make it clear that the item has a layout, but is not a
data table.

I would make the type attribute formally compulsory, so that it cannot
be totally forgotten by those who use validators; but I would expect
displaying agents either to make an intelligent guess or to have a known
default. Other types might be invented.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ??*@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
Dates - miscdate.htm Year 2000 - date2000.htm Critical Dates - critdate.htm
Euro computing - european.htm UK Y2k mini-FAQ: y2k_mfaq.txt Don't Mail News
Jul 23 '05 #79
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:35:43 +0100, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
JRS: In article <3Y*********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att
.net>, dated Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:59:27, seen in news:comp.infosystems.ww
w.authoring.html, Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> posted :
Dr John Stockton wrote:
Looking backwards, <table> should have been something more generic,
such as <grid>, with optional type=layout / type=data / type=??.
And what would be the point of <grid type="layout"> for for non-visual
user-agents?


Exactly the same as <table> used for layout, except that it can be made
clear that it is not a data table.


You're not really thinking about this.

table tells the user agent, visual or not, that the contents are related
in some fashion. UAs can then allow grouping of a column or row. The
usefulness of this to a non-visual browser is obvious.

What you're proposing is that a similar markup called "grid" be settable
for tabular or presentational interpretation. But it remains that barely
anyone here will grant you that we should be doing presentation in the
HTML.

table used for tabular data is only presentational because of the
relationship of the data. It's not meant to inflict a grid on the user.
Exactly the same as using CSS or other means for positioning on a page.
Except CSS is what is properly used for layout, and HTML is not.
AFAICS, a non-visual system must either ignore layout, describe layout
verbally, or compromise.
Of course. The aural user relies on linearization of content. Proper use
of table markup makes this not difficult. Abuse of it can. Your grid idea
does nothing to improve upon table, in fact its implementation could only
be as or less effective.
The notation does make it clear that the item has a layout, but is not a
data table.
Then why not use the tool for the job? You can drive a nail with a monkey
wrench, but why not use a hammer when you have one?
I would make the type attribute formally compulsory, so that it cannot
be totally forgotten by those who use validators; but I would expect
displaying agents either to make an intelligent guess or to have a known
default. Other types might be invented.


I say we "table" this discussion.
Jul 23 '05 #80
Dr John Stockton wrote:
Brian posted : [attribute novel snipped]
Dr John Stockton wrote:

Looking backwards, <table> should have been something more
generic, such as <grid>, with optional type=layout / type=data /
type=??.


And what would be the point of <grid type="layout"> for for
non-visual user-agents?

Exactly the same as <table> used for layout,


I see.
Exactly the same as using CSS or other means for positioning on a
page.
CSS is optional. A non-visual ua should ignore CSS intended for screen
media. What should it do with <grid> markup?
AFAICS, a non-visual system must either ignore layout,


That would make sense. But it would make more sense if the markup
language stuck to the meaning, no?

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 23 '05 #81
Dr John Stockton wrote:
Looking backwards, <table> should have been something more generic, such
as <grid>, with optional type=layout / type=data / type=??.


<indent type="margin">

<indent type="blockquote">

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 23 '05 #82
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
<indent type="margin">

<indent type="blockquote">


Some Microsoft software generates
<blockquote type="cite">
probably to distinguish a quotation (in some sense) from plain
<blockquote>, which is apparently treated as meaning just 'indent'. So
it's the same idea, just using different names.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 23 '05 #83
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
Brian wrote:

<indent type="margin">

<indent type="blockquote">

Some Microsoft software generates <blockquote type="cite"> probably
to distinguish a quotation (in some sense) from plain <blockquote>,
which is apparently treated as meaning just 'indent'. So it's the
same idea, just using different names.

! And I was just making a wiseacre comment. I didn't know there was
something like that out in the wild.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
Jul 23 '05 #84
JRS: In article <BR*********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att
..net>, dated Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:02:41, seen in news:comp.infosystems.ww
w.authoring.html, Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> posted :
Dr John Stockton wrote:
Brian posted :[attribute novel snipped]
Dr John Stockton wrote:
Looking backwards, <table> should have been something more
generic, such as <grid>, with optional type=layout / type=data /
type=??.

And what would be the point of <grid type="layout"> for for
non-visual user-agents?

Exactly the same as <table> used for layout,


I see.
Exactly the same as using CSS or other means for positioning on a
page.


CSS is optional.


Actually, it is not; it is not even available. Remember, as quoted
above, this is "looking backwards" to when <table> was new and AIUI CSS
was not dreamt of.

One must distinguish between a feasible proposal, that might possibly be
implemented in the future, and a looking back at previous decisions in
the hope of learning how to make better ones in future.
A non-visual ua should ignore CSS intended for screen
media. What should it do with <grid> markup?
AFAICS, a non-visual system must either ignore layout,


That would make sense. But it would make more sense if the markup
language stuck to the meaning, no?


No, not when there was no alternative means of influencing layout.
However, it is clear from the reports of
http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca/index.html
that presumably knowledgeable authors consider that tables *are* being
used for layout, and that accessibility checking can allow this.

How should, other than by a table, something like
<table cellspacing=9>
<tr><td>Aaa</td><td>Bb</td><td>Cc</td><td>Ddd</td><td>kjyh</td></tr>
<tr><td>3</td><td>gh</td><td>vdvdv</td><td>h</td><td>pp</td></tr>
<tr><td>...</td><td> </td><td>66</td><td>s</td><td>a</td></tr>
</table>
be done - not tabular data, but a spread arrangement of similar items of
different sizes?

It is a visual effect that might well be wanted; and a speech browser
needs to cope.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
Jul 23 '05 #85
Dr John Stockton wrote:
Brian posted :
Dr John Stockton wrote:
Brian posted :
Dr John Stockton wrote:

> Looking backwards, <table> should have been something more
> generic, such as <grid>, with optional type=layout /
> type=data / type=??.

And what would be the point of <grid type="layout"> for for
non-visual user-agents?
Exactly the same as <table> used for layout,

Exactly the same as using CSS or other means for positioning on a
page.


CSS is optional.

Actually, it is not; it is not even available. Remember, as quoted
above, this is "looking backwards" to when <table> was new and AIUI
CSS was not dreamt of.


CSS was dreamt of. TBL even had some prototype stylesheet language
working on his browser. But it's true that CSS was not implemented,
mostely because of a lack of interest from those calling the shots at
the time.
One must distinguish between a feasible proposal, that might possibly
be implemented in the future, and a looking back at previous
decisions in the hope of learning how to make better ones in future.
In that case, <grid> is even more senseless. If we go back and figure
out how they could have made www authoring better, then introducing a
stylesheet language, and losing all the presentational HTML codified in
3.2 would have been a good choice.
However, it is clear from the reports of
http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca/index.html that presumably
knowledgeable authors consider that tables *are* being used for
layout
Not exactly earth-shattering news there. We don't need to consult
reports to learn that; View -> page source works as well.
How should, other than by a table, something like
<table cellspacing=9>
<tr><td>Aaa</td><td>Bb</td><td>Cc</td><td>Ddd</td><td>kjyh</td></tr>
<tr><td>3</td><td>gh</td><td>vdvdv</td><td>h</td><td>pp</td></tr>
<tr><td>...</td><td> </td><td>66</td><td>s</td><td>a</td></tr>
</table>
be done - not tabular data, but a spread arrangement of similar items of
different sizes?
With a stylesheet, of course. Was this a trick question?
It is a visual effect that might well be wanted; and a speech browser
needs to cope.


And download all that code, needlessly. And decide that it is not data,
via heuristics, possibly getting it wrong. Your solution is to provide
an attribute that essentially says, "this is for real" or "ignore this
markup". Strange solution. The more obvious one is, if it's not a table,
don't use <table>.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
Jul 23 '05 #86
begin quote from Dr John Stockton in <Oi**************@merlyn.demon.co.uk>:
JRS: In article <1u********************************@4ax.com>, dated
Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:32:41, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> posted :
Semantics are exactly what's significant for HTML. Therefore, to mark
something up as a number that isn't a number would be incorrect.
Indeed. But to treat as a number something that needs to be treated as
a number but happens not to be a number is perfectly in order.


Apparently you missed the entire point of what Harlan was saying.
something like <nobr>, which can be used wherever it fits,
<nobr> isn't in HTML. And for good reason, too, as this kind of thing
belongs in CSS.
Looking backwards, <table> should have been something more generic, such
as <grid>, with optional type=layout / type=data / type=??.


No, this kind of thing doesn't belong in HTML, as that is a strictly
presentational element. <table> implies structure (tabular data), <grid>
does not.

--
Shawn K. Quinn
Jul 23 '05 #87
Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
We've been recognizing phone numbers here without difficulty for the
past century or more, without kibbitzing by international standards
organizations, so in what sense are there no "familiar conventions"?

I have a confession: I think that uniformity has fallen by the wayside
here. I have a recollection that phone numbers always appeared as
(xxxx) xxx-xxxx, but nowadays I see xxx-xxx-xxxx a lot too.


(There should have been three x's between the parentheses above.)

I was just mulling all this over. I edit a newsletter in which I had
standardized phone numbers on the older parenthetical model. I've just
been giving an article listing a collection of area businesses and
organizations with their phone numbers, written in the newer form. On
the verge of changing them to the older form, this thread came to
mind, and it occurred to me that the new form now makes sense and the
old form really is obsolete. So I'm switching to the fully hyphenated
version as my standard form.

Explanation: In the earlier days of direct long-distance dialing in
the US, an area code really was a parenthetical. It wasn't used for
routine calls, only for calls out of the area. When one listed one's
phone number, it made sense to write it as (xxx) xxx-xxxx because
local people didn't use the first three digits..

Now, with smaller and often overlapping area code zones, we have to
use the area code for every call. It's no longer a parenthetical but
an inseparable part of the number. So maybe that's why people have
begun using the format xxx-xxx-xxxx. It makes more sense.

[ObHTML: Do any mobile phone-based browsers include the ability to
directly dial a phone number on a Web page?]
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 23 '05 #88

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

3 posts views Thread by Mario | last post: by
25 posts views Thread by Yves Glodt | last post: by
32 posts views Thread by Adrian Herscu | last post: by
8 posts views Thread by Bern McCarty | last post: by
14 posts views Thread by Patrick Kowalzick | last post: by
399 posts views Thread by =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiB2LiBMw7Z3aXMi?= | last post: by
12 posts views Thread by puzzlecracker | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
reply views Thread by suresh191 | last post: by
reply views Thread by harlem98 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.