Standards

**Beauregard T. Shagnasty** · Jul 23 '05, 11:17 PM

Re: Standards

"GEO" Me@home.here wrote:[color=blue]
> I am not sure if I am putting this question correctly, and if it is
> the right place to ask it, but here it goes:
>
> Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:
>
> "For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer 6.02 or
> later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher use
> MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
> Netscape 7.1."[/color]

I would not ever put a "works best" statement on my pages. Why?
Because they work in *all* browsers... PDAs... mobile phones...
[color=blue]
> Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
> you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
> following some agreed upon standards?[/color]

Ahem. You must first code to some standards.

<http://validator.w3.or g/check?verbose=1 &uri=http%3A//catalogue.calga rypubliclibrary .com/>

That page has 201 errors on it. Begin there.
[color=blue]
> Thank for you comments.
>
> Geo
>
> PS: The page in question is //catalogue.calga rypubliclibrary .com/[/color]

To make that a clickable link so we don't have to copy and paste:
<http://catalogue.calga rypubliclibrary .com/>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

**Jukka K. Korpela** · Jul 23 '05, 11:17 PM

Re: Standards

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@ex ample.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I would not ever put a "works best" statement on my pages. Why?
> Because they work in *all* browsers[/color]

Well, yes, but "works best" or "optimized for" _really_ stands for
'we only looked at the pages on'.

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

**Andy Dingley** · Jul 23 '05, 11:17 PM

Re: Standards

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:56:03 GMT, "GEO" Me@home.here wrote:
[color=blue]
> Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:[/color]

No.
[color=blue]
> Considering that this is the page of a public institution...[/color]

Who are frequently the worst offenders, but react pompously and
defensively if challenged, rather than cheerfully and ignorantly as
the Flashbunnies do.
[color=blue]
>Would
>you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
>following some agreed upon standards?[/color]

No, quite the opposite. In fact it says "We don't follow standards,
but we looked at it afterwards and in these browsers it wasn't
completely b0rken"

**Matthias Gutfeldt** · Jul 23 '05, 11:17 PM

Re: Standards

"GEO" Me@home.here wrote:[color=blue]
> Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:
> http://catalogue.calgarypubliclibrary.com/
> "For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
> 6.02 or later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher
> use MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
> Netscape 7.1."
>
> Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
> you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
> following some agreed upon standards?[/color]

Absolutely not. This has nothing to do with "standards" of any kind.
It's a short list of "some frequently used browsers", nothing more.

And most users have no idea which browser they're using; they just
"klick on that desktop icon to get on the internet". So the message will
only confuse them.

Matthias
--
Swiss Blogs:

http://www.blog.ch/

Bloggertreffen 19.03.2005 in Basel:

Bot Check

http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/alex/Bloggertreffen_2005

**Lachlan Hunt** · Jul 23 '05, 11:17 PM

Re: Standards

"GEO" Me@home.here wrote:[color=blue]
> Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:
>
> "For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
> 6.02 or later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher
> use MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
> Netscape 7.1."[/color]

You forgot all about Firefox, Mozilla, Opera (for PC, Handhelds and
Voice), Konqueror, OmniWeb, iCap, Lynx, Mozaic, Amaya, AtomNet, Beonex,
Cyberdoc, Home Page Reader, JAWS, NetCaptor, Voyager, WebExplorer, WebTV
and a few hundred others that I couldn't be bothered listing.

Viewable with Any Browser: Campaign

http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/

--
Lachlan Hunt

Lachlan Hunt: Web Development Guru

http://lachy.id.au/

http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://SpreadFirefox.com/ Igniting the Web

**Alan J. Flavell** · Jul 23 '05, 11:17 PM

Re: Standards

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, it was written:
[color=blue]
> Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:
>
> "For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
> 6.02 or later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher
> use MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
> Netscape 7.1."[/color]

My first hunch was that it meant "we extruded this with \name of
expensive package\ and here's what the vendor says the package
supports". But a search with Google suggests that the above
excuse text is rather specific to this one site. So I guess I was
wrong. The product seems to be http://www.dynix.com/products/hip/
and they can't even get their own CSS right, though it's not as bad
as the library's version.

Oh dear, a "portal". My heart sinks when I stumble on that phrase.
But I digress...

Indications are that the company has jumped on the
XHTML-served-as-HTML bandwagon without bothering to understand
Appendix C. I'm guessing that the library portal pre-dates that
piece of nonsense.
[color=blue]
> Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
> you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
> following some agreed upon standards?[/color]

Well, it contains gratuitously defective CSS. It contains no DOCTYPE,
which (whether I like that circus with quirks mode or not) means it's
likely to work better with old, defective browsers than with new,
specification-conforming ones (if you see what I mean). And, even
if generously assumed to be HTML/4.01 transitional, it contains
gratuitously defective HTML, and fails even the simplest of
accessibility guidelines.

Lynx also says that its cookie is illegal, as well as its HTML.

[spacer.gif]
Click here to Sign In Sign In View my List of Titles My List - 0 Help
Help
[spacer.gif]
[tab_lt.gif] [spacer.gif] [tab_rt.gif]
[spacer.gif]
[spacer.gif] Find [spacer.gif]
[spacer.gif]
[tab_lb.gif] [spacer.gif] [tab_rb.gif]
[NW0-blue.gif] [spacer.gif] [NE0-blue.gif]
[spacer.gif]
[spacer.gif] My Account [spacer.gif]
[spacer.gif]
[spacer.gif] [spacer.gif] [spacer.gif]
[NW0-blue.gif] [spacer.gif] [NE0-blue.gif]
[spacer.gif]
[spacer.gif] Top Topics [spacer.gif]
[spacer.gif]
[spacer.gif] [spacer.gif] [spacer.gif]
[NW0-blue.gif] [spacer.gif] [NE0-blue.gif]

pffffffffffffff ffft.
[color=blue]
> PS: The page in question is //catalogue.calga rypubliclibrary .com/[/color]

**Stan Brown** · Jul 23 '05, 11:17 PM

Re: Standards

"" wrote in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:[color=blue]
> "For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
> 6.02 or later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher
>use MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
>Netscape 7.1."
>
> Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
>you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
>following some agreed upon standards?[/color]

No, this is a warning that the site is NOT following standards but
instead is coding to the bugs of particular browsers.

It is a sign that the "Web designer" has done a slipshod job, by
assuming that if it works ina couple of versions it's okay.

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA

Oak Road Systems -- Software Since 1984

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

**C A Upsdell** · Jul 23 '05, 11:17 PM

Re: Standards

"GEO" Me@home.here wrote:[color=blue]
> I am not sure if I am putting this question correctly, and if it is
> the right place to ask it, but here it goes:
>
> Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:
>
> "For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
> 6.02 or later[/color]

I trust that you realize that there is no such thing as IE6.02. The
latest version is IE6.0.

**^demon** · Jul 23 '05, 11:17 PM

Re: Standards

This is why we hate spacer images...for those of us using Lynx.

**Kimba W. Lion** · Jul 23 '05, 11:17 PM

Re: Standards

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:56:03 GMT, "GEO" Me@home.here wrote:
[color=blue]
> "For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
> 6.02 or later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher
>use MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
>Netscape 7.1."
>
> Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
>you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
>following some agreed upon standards?[/color]

More like it shows that the page doesn't follow any standards.

From a user's POV, I will upgrade my browser when it suits me to do so,
not when it suits some site. Any site that doesn't work in my browser may
as well not exist.

From a site owner's POV, I'm still getting hits from users with Netscape
3.0, IE 3.01, and WebTV, and what I would consider a significant number
of users with IE 5.0. You have to consider how many people you intend to
lock out.

Other usability issues not related to HTML:

Instructions on the page say to use "Limit and Sort", but nothing is
labeled "Limit". How can I use "Limit" if it's not there? And is "Sorting"
the same as "Sort"?

(If you think those are dumb questions, put an email link on the page.)

Oh, and your Help mentions "User Defined Limits", but I don't see any way
to use that function.

What sort of system did you design for, anyway? Your page requires a
screen wider than 1024 pixels to fit without a horizontal scroll bar (thus
inconveniencing over three-quarters of users).

**Barbara de Zoete** · Jul 23 '05, 11:17 PM

Re: Standards

On 26 Jan 2005 06:56:10 -0800, ^demon <innocentkiller @gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> This is why we hate spacer images...for those of us using Lynx.
>[/color]

This is why we[1] hate Google forum users ... for breaking the netiquette to
quote properly :-P

[1]pluralis majestatis

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

**Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz** · Jul 23 '05, 11:17 PM

Re: Standards

In <41f72094.17059 375@news.ucalga ry.ca>, on 01/26/2005
at 04:56 AM, "GEO" Me@home.here said:
[color=blue]
> Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:[/color]
[color=blue]
> "For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
> 6.02 or later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher
>use MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
>Netscape 7.1."[/color]

IMHO, it would be far better to use http://validator.w3.org/check and
to put in a reference to that. But it would be appropriate to indicate
what it had been tested against.
[color=blue]
> Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
>you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
>following some agreed upon standards?[/color]

No. If you want to be standards compliant, look to W3C.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@librar y.lspace.org

**Dan** · Jul 23 '05, 11:17 PM

Re: Standards

"GEO"Me@home.he re wrote:[color=blue]
> PS: The page in question is //catalogue.calga rypubliclibrary .com/[/color]
So the Calgary Public Library is a commercial entity?

--
Dan

**GEO Me@home.here** · Jul 23 '05, 11:17 PM

Re: Standards

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:23:05 +0000, "Alan J. Flavell"
<flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote:

<snip>[color=blue]
>The product seems to be http://www.dynix.com/products/hip/
>and they can't even get their own CSS right, though it's not as bad
>as the library's version.
>[/color]
<snip>

As I only have a passing knowledge I suspected it, but thank you for
confirming that their own pages are not well designed. It seems to me
that if you go to the link for their customers
<http://customer.dynix. com/users/logon.asp> the login procedure is
not secure. Is that so?

[color=blue]
>Lynx also says that its cookie is illegal, as well as its HTML.
>
> [spacer.gif]
> Click here to Sign In Sign In View my List of Titles My List - 0 Help
> Help
> [spacer.gif]
> [tab_lt.gif] [spacer.gif] [tab_rt.gif]
> [spacer.gif][/color]
<snip>[color=blue]
> [NW0-blue.gif] [spacer.gif] [NE0-blue.gif]
>
>pfffffffffffff fffft.
>[/color]
And I noticed an abundance of spacers on the pages of Dynix as well,
so it might be a company standard. <g>

Thank you for your comments.
Geo

Standards

Standards

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment