boen_robot

1. We should later investigate the issue. It's hard to make a site work in all browsers, we know. That's why forums like this one exist.2. Good. You'll know what to treat with priorities. Very good. So what's the problem?3. I would say it's a good thing to use multiple stylesheets, but avoid browser sniffers. You may ran in a situation where unlisted browsers can't access the page.4. Actually I see only examples of the ID selector (#). For it, I would say that it's a best practise to use at as you are doing now, scince IDs are only supposed to be used once per page. As for classes, it depends. If different elements of the same class have common properties, you should use only the .class selector itself. If you want to style only specific elements of this class, use the element.class selector.5. The purpose of server side includes (SSI) is simply to reduce maintainance time. Instead of writing the header on every single page every time it changes, you only edit the included file. This is a good practise, but in my personal opinion it's not exactly the best one. But it is definetly the easiest one, so don't be afraid to use it.6. We all want to do that and unfortunatly, we all know it's impossible. It's either a browser sniffer or hacks. The only other way would be to REALLY limit yourself with REALLY simple tools.7. Techically speaking, most developers create their layouts and use it as a "sceleton" of every new site they make, so you could do the same too.8. In short: CSS hacks.9. There is a questions others ask too. W3Schools' (reasonable!) answer to this is that they are concentrating more on expanding their tutorials, then on their accessability features. I would say that when W3Schools expands enough and new versions of IE(7 for starters) come out, you may then start to expect W3Schools to convert into tableless layout.10. Well, you said the benefits of float yourself. It's just that absolute positioning doesn't hold them.11. I would say it's fine.12. Well if you have more questions, don't hesitate to ask .

Ha. XML which is actually pure XHTML. Nice... anyway, as for your idea, where I live is really late so I'm not much into thinking now, so execuse me, but... try something like absolute paths. If they are not an option, then perhaps something like <xsl:for-each select="td"><td><xsl:value-of select="../../th/p/strong" />:<xsl:value-of select="." /></td></xsl:for-each> might do the trick.

Let's say you won't. Websites aren't/shouldn't be a bunch of images on page for a variety of reasons: Downloads slower then plain text Doesn't allow such "dynamics" due to the fixed nature of images Doesn't resize well on all resolutions So I suggest you forget about this kind of idea before you actually make some "progress" with it.

In IE's blog I found this video about the future of IE. You really have to watch it. It holds many "why"s to many questions some of us ask. Few things to really consider in it: 8:00 - Balance points: Simplicity VS Control - An issue that I notice some of you as skilled people really don't consider, but after all, IE is going to be used by non professionals too. 10:00 - Running multiple versions of IE - A big issue with no practical solution so far. 14:20 - The Adid2 test - Is it really a priority? 16:06 - "IE6 is sort of the new Netscape 4" 18:40 - "We've got PNG Alpha channels now, thank god. It's 2006, right?" 25:00 - Balance points: Standarts VS Compatability - Conclusion of the whole thing is that some people are lazy and/or don't really care of their work. 29:22 - "Web developers and designers are also customers and yet they haven't, I think, really been included in that equasion until very recently" - Yes. The Microsoft team actually listens. What they do is another question. 35:28 - "This question of release frequency. We've all agreed 5 years is too long." - Hope this means future updates will be more frequent. 39:18 - "Changes WILL occur in software, changes WILL occur in the environment and the platform. That is what we've signed-up for." - A prase which I, and I bet you too, understand completely, but we have to understand we're not the whole world. And this video about the CSS support in IE7 and others you may find in Channel 9. The new thing in that video for me is that IE7 supports position:fixed, min/max-height/width. OMG, I'm getting REALLY inpatient about this release. I'm sure it will strike me when I see it (at least at first sight) the same way WMP10 stroke me when it came out at my birthday (as if it was a gift for me ).[edit] @Blue what I said in my comment about Acid2 was rithorical question [/edit]

I'm not much into encoding, but it sounds as if UTF-8 uses a single byte to represent a single character, while UTF-16 uses 2 bytes to represent a single character. Therefore UTF-16 could represent more different characters but at the cost of bigger file size.I'm not sure, but it seems that when you convert your file to UTF-8, all extra bytes are eliminated and UTF-16 characters should be presented by a single *unknown character* entity, which is most of the times a question mark or a square. If you really need the extra characters, you should try saving your file as Unicode. If your XML looks fine in more then one editor as it is, then you don't use any extra characters and could actually switch to UTF-8 in the XML file itself.

If by "change the presentation of it" you mean something like a dynamical change of presentation, depending on the currently changed content... perhaps an XSLT with conditional statements?Well, if you mean that you won't have existing XML file, but would "emulate" one with JavaScript/VBScript well... hm... considering the fact that the JavaScript that runs XSLT inside XHTML doesn't requre the XML to have processing instructions, I would say that you don't need to create processing instructions, but could also do that.As for this FAQ thing... If I ever create a website of mine, FAQ about XSLT is THE first thing I'm going to include. Until then, the most frequently asked things, such as "how to create attributes based on XML data?" were already suggested to W3Schools' staff to add to the tutorial. When are they going to be added is another thing.

I wonder what will happen when IE7 comes out...It has tabs, so the classical reason for "having one window for all reasons" will fall.IE6 with SP2 already has a pop-up blocker, so that's not an argument either.IE7 will have some kind of "phishing filter" which is somehow a secuiry improvement, not to mention the lot of bug and security fixes, so secirity at first is not going to be an issue (I repeat: at first... later on, it most probably will be).Standarts supports... though IE7 is going to have some new things in this area, it's still not going to be as good as FF. But there is a huge "but" here (excuse the pun): end users don't care for standarts support and it's never among their arguments when trying to say why they like a certain browser.Faster browser... hm... I don't know... I seem to be unable to notice a difference between IE6 and FF and IE7 will probably not be much faster. I do however notice a huge difference between IE6 and Opera but that's out of the question.Extensions... IE7 is suppose to have a lot of built in funtionality such as RSS reader like the one in Opera and Microsft is probably going to make some plug-ins. Yes, FF is going to remain with more extensions allowing it a lot more funtionality, but hey, IE is not an open source browser after all. Besides, business users would prefer a less expandable browser.[edit] Actually, I just found a site full of extensions (add-ons to be exact) for IE7 right at http://www.ieaddons.com[/edit]

I was trying to have something like this with no success . However, I never tryed the parameter with string method, so... thank you .

.htaccess files are always accessable as long as you don't use HTTP or HTTPS to acces them (after all, that's where the name comes from). If you connect to the server via FTP, you could see and download the .htaccess files for example. I'm not sure how the things go if via HTTP or HTTPS you access a folder with .htaccess file which doesn't target the folder itself.As for .htpasswd... as far as I know, such files are placed out of the server's directory, thus are inacessable in any manner via HTTP or HTTPS. If FTP or other protocol has access to the outside folder where the .htpasswd file resides however, the file would be accessable.Conclusion: yes. Such things are relatively safe to use, especially when talking about having access only for yourself.

Isn't that just another reason for not using tables for layouts .Hmmm... what if width is set individually for a table cell?

The syntax of using images as a background is url(url to the image). Example: background: url(something.jpg); You should actually declare all needed background properties when using the background property such as: background: #F9C8D8 url(something.jpg); You could also use more precise properties such as: background-image: url(something.jpg);background-color: #F9C8D8;

I don't think you could expect that any soon though. Mainly because other translations were already requested and W3Schools' staff refused. Not to mention there's probably no one at W3Schools' staff to know Chinese.

How about a predicate? /rss/item[position() <= 10]

Just curious... isn't XSLT's namespace actually: xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"

I don't get it... any "live" example, where such kind of attribute changing would be useful?

Well, personally, I would prefer a more classical approach of a server side scripting language. XSLT should be used only as a transforming language. Not to mention that I can't image how would you connect to the database with XSLT without any scripting.

It depends on what kind of "database" we're taling about. A counter? Well, instead of having detect every single "hit" on the page, the server's script could instead create a sesson variable and count the sessons intead. Or fetch the header information, and count the different IPs.

What about enclosing the things for IE in a separate stylesheet, so the main one at least could validate?[edit]Not to mention that having a special stylesheet to update is a lot better then not supporting the the certain feature on the browser at all.[/edit]

You could have an XML with only a reference to some XSLT. That XSLT would create create another (or better yet- the same) XML file with a reference to another XSLT. What eactly is the second XSLT going to be... hm... not entirely sure here. Perhaps a JavaScript that would detect the click and change a variable which would trigger a change in the first XSLT to switch to another XSLT in the output.

Whatever the language is, in order to "define" it's legal building blocks, you would use DTD or Schema. From then on, it depends. If the language is suppose to have XHTML or other supported XML based language equivalent, you can use XSLT and/or a server side scripting language to transform it into that language. If it's not supported natively by browsers, you would have to create a plug-in or applet with OOP language such as JAVA or C++.

I think with Web Services Description Language- WDSL.

Nah, that's a really high security risk. More like live example, such as the code on the left and the result on the right WITHOUT the ability to edit the code (like in the ASP tutorials).I think it would be good if something like an example on how to use regular expressions is shown. But perhaps the already suggested regular expressions tutorial would have to be created first though.

It seems to me as the page LG provided is a bit outdated.Every browser today supports *.png, so saying "the new" is not exactly true (there's a rhyme even ).*.bmp is THE WORST format for graphics on the web. Every pixel in a BMP file is described detaily without any kind of compression and there's no transparansy avaiable.*.jpg is a format which should be used for big and quality images such as photos. A jpg of best quality barely has differences with BMP and yet it's a lot smaller, making it perfect as a generally used format. Doesn't have transparancy, but it's not meant for having it either.*.gif has a higher compression then *.jpg, but unlike it, it can have up to 256 colors. If you use less, the GIF's collor pallete is optimized to store only those colours. Transparancy is only "binary". A pixel is either transparent or not transparent.*.png is able to have just as much colors as a *.jpg and yet uses a compression which is just as good as *.gif and in some cases even better. It has a feature known as "alpha transparency", which means that a pixel could be transparent, not transparent or any value in between. Unfortunatly, IE6 has problems with this feature, but it does support binary PNG transparency as far as I know, so PNG is still an option.When it comes to graphics of higher resolutions, both *.gif and *.png fail in compressing the image well. It's some kind of difference in the methods. I'm not entirely sure. That's why there's still a place for *.jpg too. And *.tif. TIFF isn't good for anything anymore.By the way, the extension of SVG is *.svg and *.svgz, not *.png and *.pngz . Also, SVG is not a raster format (each pixel described on it's own), but a vector format (each "object" in it is described by some sort of code), similary to Flash, so it shouldn't be mentioned here.

I'm not sure, but i think sans-serif would refer to the generic font TYPE, while "sans serif" would refer to an EXACT font named "sans serif", so both of theese examples are right, as long as the user had a font named "sans serif" though.

You mean this one? I like the way it looks, but I would really like to see the site itself, so it would be well if you could provide a working link to the pages themselves.