Copyright info out of date.
© Copyright 2004-2011 Apple Computer, Inc., Mozilla Foundation, and Opera Software ASA. I think that should read, © Copyright 2004-2012.
XHTML is not a syntax or a serialization
Hi Ian Regarding this: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/the-xhtml-syntax.html#the-xhtml-syntax Can you please change syntax to variant. XHTML is not a syntax or a serialization. Thanks Dean
re: Dissatisfaction with HTML WG
Hello Lachlan Regarding this: Dean Edridge wrote: HTML5 (not so democratic or balanced) author guidelines: Lachlan Hunt ... Lachlan Hunt wrote: This is the second time you have attacked me by calling me not so democratic or balanced, Sorry, but this is not true. The not so democratic or balanced comment was directed at the document that you had created, not at you personally. I was saying that your document was not so democratic or balanced. I am sincerely sorry for any unpleasantness caused. I am sorry for not making it clear what I was saying. I am also sorry for not clarifying this at the time. Take care Dean
[Evolution] The Top 5 Sex Rules That Get In the Way of Great Sex
inline: image/png___ Pkg-evolution-maintainers mailing list Pkg-evolution-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-evolution-maintainers
Re: Media types for XHTML 1.x document
Hi Philippe Sorry, I didn't mean to get in to a big discussion about this before hearing back from Steven, but it seems to have worked out that way... oh well. It seems I misread what you wrote earlier, I see now that your arguments appear to be based on the belief that the XHTML2 WG has been following the W3C process and working within their charter. I do not believe that they have stayed within their charter, or followed the W3C process, I pointed this out in my original emails [1][2], it seems you may not have had time to read those yet. Anyway, obviously it's best to wait until I hear back from Steven before going into it too much more. But as there's some confusion about what exactly the complaint is about and why I believe I have a valid point, I'll clarify what my objections are. Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: [adding back www-archive] Thanks, that's what I asked for - Dean Edridge wrote: Can you please read the reasons I have given for my objections and if you feel the need to respond to me please cc the archive as when I have dealt with these sorts of issues privately in the past I have been ignored. Dean Edridge wrote: I strongly disagree, they *are* obligated to update the document as I requested. They are NOT obligated. I think you'll find that the process rules/guides you're referring to here are for documents that working groups are authorised to produce, and the XHTML2 WG are certainly not authorised to produce a general how to guide for versions of XHTML that other working groups are developing, only for the versions of XHTML that they are maintaining/developing, which is only XHTML1.x, so IMO that above comment isn't relevant/valid. I'll add these relevant comments (plus some extra words and edits) that I sent you earlier but didn't get archived. Dean Edridge wrote: The XHTML2 WG is saying that text/html is a valid XHTML mime type, which isn't really correct, but has already been OKed by earlier W3C documents (well, not really, but... anyway) for XHTML1.x, but at the same time, the HTML WG is saying that it is not a valid XHTML mime type, and that text/html web pages can only be HTML. So, regardless of syntax, the mime type is authoritive and rules over doctype etc, then from there, it's a matter of whether the web page validates against that mime type. So the XHTML2 WG is saying that the difference between HTML and XHTML is purely syntactic, but the HTML WG defines it based on how the web works, and that's on mime. So the HTML WG, browser vendors and other industry experts define the difference between HTML and XHTML as being the mime type, file ext, or how the document is processed (ie. an HTML or XML parser). Having these differences of opinion between two groups or between two specs is not necessarily a big problem (and it's unavoidable anyway, for historical reasons) as long as the public know the note doesn't apply to all versions of XHTML. So, this isn't a major problem if every one knows that the mime type note only applies to XHTML1.x, but if it is seen as a general note published and endorsed by the W3C on how to use XHTML (which it is) then *this is a big problem* . But as I said earlier, the confusion can be eliminated by simply adding a new title and URL to the note. There are lots of other things I disagree with in the note but I'm willing to let them be as it doesn't matter too much as long as people know the note only applies to XHTML1.x and not other versions of XHTML such as the XHTML variant of the HTML5 spec etc. Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: The Group is expected to address issues but [1] doesn't say anything about formally addressing them in order to publish. In other words, neither you or I have the authority to prevent a Working Group from publishing the Note if they follow the W3C Process and also follow their charters. Well, as I said in my first email(s) [1][2], the XHTML2 WG have deliberately gone outside their charter and they have not followed the W3C process. However hard they try to convince people that they are the XHTML WG and control all things XHTML, they are *not* the XHTML WG and are not chartered to be in charge of *all* things XHTML, this is a case of wishful thinking, and persistent persuasion of W3C staff and the public by the XHTML2 WG in the hope that, amongst other things, they can prevent the XHTML variant of HTML5 (XHTML5) from being developed. These deliberate attempts to mislead people have not gone unnoticed and have been objected to before by myself and many in the HTML WG and in the community. The XHTML2 WG know very well that the *HTML WG are developing both HTML and XHTML* as I have pointed this out to Steven Pemberton, Shane McCarron, Mark Birbeck and the XHTML2 WG on several occasions. It's clear to me and others that the XHTML2 WG do not have sole authority over XHTML, this is indicated by the fact that the name of their group was changed from
Re: Media types for XHTML 1.x document
Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: [...] normative overlap between different W3C committees (WebAPPS vs. HTML, HTML vs XHTML) is a problem. And that's the case we're in. Philippe, I will reply to all the points in your earlier email later, but for now... What you keep referring to is a larger problem that has indeed caused the problem that I drew your attention to, but the point here is that the problem with the note can be easily solved without charter changes, or huge discussions, and without even changing the contents of the note. The contradiction/conflict/confusion can simply be solved by someone doing the two things that I requested, and that is, changing the title and URL of the note so it's clear that it only applies to XHTML 1.x. :-) The fact that the W3C process allows the XHTML2 WG to not be obligated to make the requested changes doesn't mean that the note shouldn't or can't be changed. ;-) -- Dean Edridge
objections
Bonjour Karl! # # [03:31] karl http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2009Jan/0122.html # # [03:31] pimpbot Title: Re: Misleading title for XHTML 1.x mime type document - take three from Dean Edridge on 2009-01-30 (public-xht...@w3.org from January 2009) (at lists.w3.org) # # [03:32] karl Can someone please tell me why the XHTML 1.x media type note has not been changed to address the concerns that I brought to the attention of the working group? I expect the XHTML2 working group to make the requested changes to the document ASAP. # # [03:32] karl *sigh* # # [03:33] karl working with the community or asking like if it was a paid service It's not about being polite, patient, and waiting for the change to occur, it was deliberately ignored for political reasons, they had said they wouldn't change it. Can I suggest that you get the facts before you jump in and judge me. The HTML WG has had to put up with all sorts of bogus complaints and objections from that group. We have even had to mark out the areas on the spec that they object to (which is really silly as these objections are unfounded). Then when I make a legitimate complaint about their work all I get is political push back and stone walling. It's a pity that I am the only one (AFAIK) in the HTML WG that is trying to fix/attend-to these problems that other working groups are causing for HTML5. We have about 380 people in the HTML WG and several W3C staff working on HTML5, but it appears that I'm the only one that's got the guts to stand up and ask the difficult questions, make the awkward objections, and deal with the W3C politics that keep being put in front of HTML5's path. I was the only one (except DanC) that objected to the RDFa in XHTML1 spec that clashed with HTML5, and even then that group ignored my complaint and refused to change their spec. Someone from the HTML WG should have contacted the XHTML2 WG about this mime type document conflict months ago but it seems everyone's too afraid to deal with all the politics involved. Why hadn't you objected to this document or pointed out the contradiction? It shouldn't be left for me to deal with. In the future; if you have a problem with some thing I have said or done, can you please let me know through email (and cc the archive if you wish) as I'm not on irc 24/7 to refute your comments towards me. Thanks -- Dean Edridge
Media types for XHTML 1.x document
Hello Steven I sent an email to the XHTML2 mailing list (public-xhtml2) a few days ago [1] but have not yet received a response. The message in question was sent because I did not receive a satisfactory response from the group to my original email(s) that were sent on: 2008-12-23. I noticed that you are the team contact for the XHTML2 WG so thought I'd bring this to your attention as it looks like the group have forgotten to respond to me. Can I please have an official response from the XHTML2 WG to the issues I raised in the email as this matter needs to be dealt with ASAP. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2009Jan/0122.html Thanks -- Dean Edridge
Re: several messages
Ian Hickson wrote: As far as I can tell everything is correct here, the problem is on your end. I wasn't saying that the problem was at your end; whether it's a problem with firefox or whatever, I was just letting you know that the problem existed, that's all, just like I emailed you once to tell you that the WHATWG spec was missing it's doctype. No, there is no removal mechanism. Eventually all sections will be annotated. OK, that's fine, I did not know this. It was the first time I had used the annotation system and just wanted to know how it works as the doc's didn't explain this particular area. Please don't remove or change annotations unless they are clearly factually wrong. It was factually wrong. The description for that category said: Controversial Working draft Same as Working draft, but there is a particularily high level of controversy around this section, so it may change dramatically. Saying that it may change dramatically was factually wrong so I changed it. If you don't want people editing the annotation systems Ian, then for goodness sake don't make them publicly editable, or at least tell people what the rules are. The annotation here, for example, was added during discussions between members of the W3C HTML working group and the WHATWG in the spirit of cooperation during the W3C plenary recently. This was not publicly archived or announced to the HTML WG (or to anyone), so don't see how I was supposed to know. Incidentally, the HTML5 work is supposed to be a completely public endaveour. You complicate this when sending me private e-mail I very rarely ask you questions privately Ian, and when I do it's about off-topic stuff. Please, if you e-mail me about HTML5, The email was *not* about HTML5 Ian, it was an off topic enquiry regarding the presentation of the spec in my web browser and an enquire as to how to use the annotation system as the doc's did not detail the feature that I was trying to use. These seem to me to be pretty off-topic things to email you about that don't need to be publicly archived. I'm not on IRC very often to ask you about these sort of minor issues so I emailed you, if that was wrong, then I'm sorry. cc a publicly archived mailing list, even if it only [EMAIL PROTECTED] I do, and you know that I do because we've discussed this before. Anything that I think needs changing on the spec I send to public-html or www-archive. -- Dean Edridge
Re: The HTML5 project is a joint effort between the W3C and the WHATWG
Julian Reschke wrote: Julian Reschke wrote: As far as I can tell, this is not accurate. There is feedback he said he got (and I believe him) that he doesn't share with us because he was told not to. That's not really an issue, and there is nothing Ian can do to stop someone from sending him feedback, lots of people have his email address. I do know that he prefers everything to be sent to a public archive. The important thing to note here is that he doesn't discuss changes to the spec privately, meaning he makes all decisions publicly. It's hard to argue about feedback we can't see. You don't have to argue about that feedback. Ian wont edit the spec without supplying publicly archived rationale for those changes, and if you don't agree with what's changed then simply ask him to explain his rationale in further detail. I'm sure if you can provide new evidence/feedback he'll change the spec accordingly. -- Dean Edridge
Re: The HTML5 process is fair
Julian Reschke wrote: Do we really need this discussion? No, we don't, because I think we've already established that things aren't as bad as you once thought. discuss them with Ian, Dan, Chris or Mike. *Instead* of the mailing list? Dan's the staff contact, work that out with him I guess. -- Dean Edridge
Re: Consensus. was: Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification
Julian Reschke wrote: But volume of comments can be an indicator of whether something has consensus or not. [...] ... that clearly is not stable, nor has consensus, and also could *easily* be specified separately. Consensus among whom? -- Dean Edridge
The HTML5 project is a joint effort between the W3C and the WHATWG
Julian Reschke wrote: Dean Edridge wrote: So the people in the HTML WG are the only ones contributing to HTML5 then? Not necessarily. But if the W3C HTML WG can't decide about what's in an W3C spec and what's not, why do we have it in the first place? HTML5 is a joint project between the W3C and the WHATWG, so it's not quite as simple as that. You can't say: now, you guys at the W3C, you can edit the top half of the spec and the WHATWG folk, they can edit the bottom half and we'll split everything 50/50. I think you're being idealistic and puristic. Have you got some better ideas on how we could do this? I mean, how do you expect it to be developed Julian? It's a different case than other specs developed at the W3C because it's a joint-venture. The WHATWG can't decide what's in a WHATWG or W3C spec either, ideas/features get added (or don't get added) to the spec based on what's best for HTML5 and the Open Web platform. Ian has said many times that there's things in the spec that he himself doesn't like but he has had to put them in as there were good sound arguments for them, which proves that he's not just throwing in his favourite ideas and having things his way. Someone has to actually log in and physically edit the spec, and it happens to be Ian. This is all done in public with a commits-tracker web page plus several mailing lists listing the changes/edits: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker I follow these lists and read every change, I have not yet seen any changes that have given me reason for concern. If I did, I'd just email public-html and discuss it there. Plus, I'm sure you are aware of the two IRC channels where people discuss the HTML5, I've seen you on at least one of them: irc://irc.w3.org:6665/html-wg irc://irc.freenode.net/whatwg Everything is done out in the open, there's no secret deals done behind closed doors. Ian wont even discuss things with people privately as he insists on having a public account of everything (ie. cc www-archive), he's made this quite clear to me in the past. If the only desire is to slap a W3C label on something that is somebody else's activity, we should be clear about it. It is most certainly not somebody else's activity and that most certainly is *not* the desire. Just have a look at how the HTML WG has coordinated with the MathML WG and the SVG WG, input came from those groups through the HTML WG into the spec. There has been considerable input in to the spec from the HTML WG, it is not just a WHATWG project. There is absolutely no justification for saying that it is someone else's activity Julian. Just because Ian happens to be one of the nine core members for the WHATWG, doesn't mean he favours feedback received through the WHATWG mailing list. Ian takes in feedback from both the groups, from all sorts of people including various mailing lists and blogs and edits the spec based the merits of that feedback, not by who has sent it. So your suggestion that the spec is a WHATWG spec waiting to have a W3C badge thrown on the front of it is unfounded. It was you that asked/demanded that we have a special doctype for XSLT generated HTML5. There were *lots of objections* to that, myself and many other people strongly lobbied on public-html for HTML5 not to have a special case doctype for XSLT generated software as having just the one doctype was a strong (unwritten) design principal. Now, let me think, what was the outcome of that?... That's right, based on your sound arguments Ian did see that it was needed and added a special doctype to the spec even though there were lots of objections. Now IMO, if we had had a vote on that, I don't think the HTML WG would have gone for a XSLT-compat doctype, so you're idea of consensus will save us would have failed you there. As it happens that incident proved that Ian does add features to the spec if there are strong arguments for them (as there was) even though he sometimes doesn't like them himself and they are unpopular. If you are really unhappy with the present situation then I challenge you to make a list and send it to the www-archive and you can discuss it with Ian, the chairs, or whoever you wish to (me even). Remember, it was me that publicly criticised the process and the way that Ian was editing the spec. I said to Ian privately that I wanted him to prove me wrong, and over the past year he has done that. I have confidence in the way that he edits the spec and the way that he is not biased on what feedback he adds to it. I wouldn't have changed my opinion on this matter without careful consideration. Have you ever heard the saying: The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence? It's very easy to think that if this or that changed everything would be perfect. :) -- Dean Edridge
Re: HTML5 spec
Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:52:12 +0100, Dean Edridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have nothing at all against Mike being pro-active and putting some thing together and publishing it, it's only the fact that it's been published at, and endorsed by the W3C that bothers me, it's pretty hard to argue against such a spec when it has already been published and people have accepted that it's here for good. In what way has it been published and endorsed by the W3C? I think I've already explained that, I think we are just going to see this differently. To me and I'm sure a lot of other people, the spec looks like published work: www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/ http://www.webdirections.org/blog/html5-markup-language-first-draft-published/ http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/11/html_5_the_markup.html For wrong or for right, this is how I see it: it's pretty hard to argue against such a spec when it has already been published and people have accepted that it's here for good. It certainly does not look to be published and endorsed more than say when I first drafted the html5-diff document, on which the HTML WG had not made any decisions at that time either. I don't see how that matters, perhaps there was an error in that process too. I guess you could say that I have a problem with this particular part of the W3C process. Believe it or not I went out of my way to not make this look like an offensive criticism of Mike, that was the last thing I wanted to do, if it's come across that way I'll be happy to discuss it with him. (I'm not sure I agree with that the document should define things in a normative way, I agree. but I have a hard time seeing how anything Mike did here is wrong.) It wasn't supposed to be a case of Mike being wrong, more of a case of me disagreeing with the process. I did try to put my concerns across without criticising Mike personally. -- Dean Edridge
Re: email subjects and threads Re: Comments on HTML WG face to face meetings in France Oct 08
Dan Connolly wrote: On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 01:16 +1300, Dean Edridge wrote: Some brief comments on the IRC logs located at: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/f2f/2008-10/ This relates to the face to face meetings in France Oct 2008 Well, it relates to all sorts of things; email threads work better when they're more focussed. In particular, the meeting is over, so you can't impact it. You could impact the record, but I don't think you're suggesting that. I'd prefer to see separate messages, for example: Subject: 'clean content' and authoring guides Subject: MathML Subject: SVG in text/html OK, I can see that I should have sent separate messages, point taken. Thanks. -- Dean Edridge
Re: Feed back on RDFa in XHTML1.1
Ian Hickson wrote: Having said all that, I think your e-mail would be fine, if you do want to send it. Thanks, I've sent it through. :) -- Dean Edridge
separate mailing list for HTML5 author guide
Hi guys For a while now I've been wondering if the HTML WG needs a separate email address (mailing list) for the HTML5 authoring guide that Lachlan has been working on. The HTML5 authoring guide will be quite a large document when finished and I'm sure there will be lots of email discussion during it's development, so having a separate list makes good sense IMHO. I have often wanted to send in feedback but haven't because I didn't want to annoy the 400 members of the HTML WG by posting to public-html as often comments are for just minor typos or suggestions. Also, people often complain about the amount of emails coming through on public-html so if there was a separate mailing list for the authoring guide it would help to keep down the traffic on public-html. I also think that having a separate list would encourage discussion about the authoring guide. I noticed that the [author-guide] prefix has been used in the subject line before when sending author guide related emails to public-html before, but I don't think it's that satisfactory because the whole group still gets the emails. Here are some possible addresses that could be used: public-html-author@ public-html-author-guide@ Thanks -- Dean Edridge
Re: Dejavu: ongoing
Ian Hickson wrote: If you are indeed willing to take on editing responsibilities, there are a number of features I would like to take out of HTML5 and move into their own spec. Would you be willing to take the timers chapter and edit that? That is, the section defining setTimeout() and so forth. It's a somewhat large amount of work (probably a few months of full time work, spread over about a year, mostly reverse engineering and responding to feedback, and some writing, though most of that is done now). If you would be willing to edit this section, or maybe some other section, e.g. the 2D canvas graphics context, or the SQL profile, or the updates to DOM2 Traversal and Range, that would be wonderful. I'd be happy to help you get set up. Sure, just send me the login details and I'll get started on these right away ;) dean
Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?
Dean Matthews wrote: On May 13, 2008, at 3:44 PM, dwain wrote: where is it and is it incorporated into firefox yet? dwain On 5/12/08, Dean Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 12, 2008, at 11:13 PM, dwain wrote: and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in the w3c css validator. Not if you use the CSS level 3 validator ;) It's at: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/#validate_by_uri+with_options Under profile, select CSS 3 Don't know about Firefox. I assume we're talking about the Web Developer Tool bar extension for Firefox? [1] If so, it's quite customisable and you can change the validation level to CSS3 1) Go to the options tab on the developer tool bar 2) From the drop down menu select Options 3) From the menu on the left select Tools 4) You will then see a list of URLs, under Application/URL, click the one that says: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css21warning=0uri= 5) Then click the Edit button, you can then make changes to the URL: To have CSS3 included in the validation, change: css21 to css3 I'd also recommend changing: warning=0 to warning=1 , this tells the CSS Validator to also show you warnings. So in the end the URL should look something like this: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css3warning=1uri= Also, while you have the web developer tool bar options open: from the left select Validation you'll then see Validate Local CSS, under that, choose the CSS3 option Click OK and you're done. Now you can validate pages that contain CSS3 just by going to the developer tool bar and selecting Tools = Validate CSS. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/60 Cheers, Dean Edridge *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: Dissatisfaction with HTML WG
James Graham wrote: Dean Edridge wrote: It's unfortunate that I'm forced to bring this up in public, but since I have already expressed my concerns regarding this group privately with: Ian Hickson, Anne van Kesteren, Lachlan Hunt, Mike Smith, Chris Wilson and Dan Connolly, but with no success and no change in attitude, I obviously need to mention them again here. I've also made formal complaints with Mike Smith, Chris Wilson and Dan Connolly regarding the openness and process of this group but those have not been acted on. I have no option but to make my concerns publicly known. General concerns regarding the HTML WG and (X)HTML5 I'm disappointed to see a lot of anti-XHTML sentiment within the group considering that this spec is supposed to be both HTML5 and XHTML5 I would have thought that people could be a bit more open minded than this. We are, after all, supposed to be Leading the web to its full potential yet some people insist on putting limitations on the web by restricting it to only text/html. I don't think that the working group and specification is being run in an objective, democratic and non-biased manner. For example: HTML5 Editor: Ian Hickson (Google) HTML5 Editors assistant: David Hyatt (Apple) HTML5 Design Principals co-editor: Anne van Kesteren (Opera software) HTML5 Design Principals co-editor: Maciej Stachowiak (Apple) HTMLWG staff contact: Mike Smith (ex Opera software) HTMLWG co-chair: Chris Wilson (Microsoft) (Nice guy, but he did put his name on the first XHTML spec 8 years ago, then prevented over 6 Billion people from being able to use it.) HTML5 (not so democratic or balanced) author guidelines: Lachlan Hunt (Opera software) Deliberately published his guide with the W3C logo even though that day there had been several objections to his loose choice of formatting within the public-html mailing list. The HTMLWG is becoming less and less democratic everyday. It has become a dictatorship driven by three companies: Google, Apple and Opera. These companies have there own interest at heart which may or may not be in the best interest of the open web. Unless one happens to be an employee (or a friend of an employee) of these companies, one doesn't seem to have much say in the way that HTML5 and XHTML5 gets developed. I have witnessed on many occasions people outside of these organisations/companies have not had their ideas taken seriously or added to the spec. I can think of Sam Ruby, Karl Dubost and myself just to name a few people that have not only had their ideas knocked down but have been personally mocked, ridiculed and attacked by Ian Hickson Co on the IRC channels just because the ideas or decisions they made did not suit Ian and his group. I don't see what the point is in having 1000 or more people involved in this work if only one person is in control of what gets added to the spec? What's the point in having people put their ideas on the table if at the end of the day Ian comes to the table and only picks up the ideas he likes? I don't believe that such a process as important as this should be controlled by just one man. Many ideas have been put forward but rejected because they don't fit into Ian's view of what the web should be. Ian has shown his lack of professionalism to me by publishing my personal emails publicly on his web site and the CSS working group member-only emails publicly. [1] How can a person like Ian be left with such control over a specification that over 6 billion people are expected to use? The W3C staff members don't seem to be interested in defending the open web given that I have made official complaints regarding Ian Hickson and his sponsors, but yet had no active response from the W3C. If the W3C can't stand up to this renegade group then what's the point of having the W3C? It seems that anyone can hijack the web and dictate to the world so long as they have enough money. I do appreciate all the work that has been put into (X)HTML5 by Ian and the rest of the WHATWG, I just feel that it's time for certain people to let go and let others have a say in the way the spec should be. After all, it's supposed to be an open spec for the open web isn't it? If the way things are done in this group doesn't change to a more democratic model I'll be suggesting to the chairs that Ian Hickson be replaced as Editor of the spec with someone more professional and independent. In the mean time I hereby ask that the HTML WG chairs engage the services of another person who is not an employee of Google, Opera software, Apple/Webkit or Mozilla to be another co Editor and watch Ian to see if he is taking everyone's ideas/concerns in to account and not blocking democracy with his own personal views/ideals. Dean, I disagree with almost everything you have said. I hope in time that you will come around to seeing that my concerns are in fact genuine. As far as I can tell, the current
Re: HTML syntax (offlist)
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:25:27 +0100, Dean Edridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
There is no the one syntax
But there could be .. *if* there's not already.
In XHTML you want to be allowed to write markup like this:
h:html xmlns:h=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en
...
For obvious reasons this doesn't work in HTML.
I never said that everyone should write like this. And I never expected
to write lke that and use it in HTML.
In HTML you want to write markup like this:
script
if(xy) alert(danger)
/script
For obvious reasons this doens't work in XHTML. Restricting either one
so that in theory you can copy and paste between them doesn't seem
worth it.
Yeah, sorry I didn't get what you were referring to. If you had
mentioned ![CDATA[ I would have go t it :-)
script type=text/javascript
![CDATA[
var FO_logo = { movie:swf/logo.swf, width:100%,
height:100%, majorversion:6, build:0, wmode:transparent,
salign:tl };
UFO.create(FO_logo, logo);
]]
/script
and for HTML viewers they get:
script type=text/javascript
var FO_logo = { movie:swf/logo.swf, width:100%, height:100%,
majorversion:6, build:0, wmode:transparent, salign:tl };
UFO.create(FO_logo, logo);
/script
It's not just what I wish to do in the future. It's about the whole
world, it's about all the documents that will be circulating out
there. They will be incompatible with each other.
They already are. However, on a language level they are not incompatible.
How on earth do you think that HTML5 and XHTML5 will live on the web
at the same time without some type of increased normalisation between
the two?
By using separate consumers that handle each in an appropriate way.
You need that anyway to deal with non-conforming HTML and XHTML using
XML features.
Re: HTML syntax (offlist)
Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:24:19 +0100, Dean Edridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In XHTML you want to be allowed to write markup like this: h:html xmlns:h=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en ... For obvious reasons this doesn't work in HTML. I never said that everyone should write like this. And I never expected to write lke that and use it in HTML. You expected to be able to copy and paste between the two. That's just unrealistic. Now you seem to change your point of view to only care about syntactic differences part of the time (unquoted attribute values). What if I want to copy some of your markup from one of your HTML5 sites and paste it into one of my XHTML5 sites. I said some. And I never changed my point of view.
Re: Use .html at the end of the url instead of / ?
Mathieu Poussin wrote: > Hello , > i have a question, > by default , django add a slash at the end of the url , like that : > http://my/documents/hello -> http://my/documents/hello/ > > it's possible to add .html instead of that ? like that : > http://my/documents/hello -> http://my/documents/hello.html > > if yes, how ? > > > thanks , Sorry for my bad english Hi Mathieu, Are you sure you want to change your URLs to .html? Personally, I think that all URLs should end with a slash, most good SEO specialists choose this style. Having your URLs end with a slash is good. It looks better and shortens your pages address. Also, in the future, you may find that not all of your pages are going to be text/html. I'm just a django newbie but I would say that you might get into trouble later if you ad .html to the end of all your URLs. For example what would happen if you wanted to have a sub-page/child-page(s) such as http://my/documents/hello/world/ or http://my/documents/hello/there/how-are-you/ If you had a page called http://my/documents/hello.html it wouldn't really make sense. I think having URLs end with a slash gives you more options in the future, but that's just my opinion :) Thanks, Hope that helps, -- Dean Edridge http://www.zealmedia.co.nz/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The only name for the xml serialisation of html5
Ian Hickson wrote: On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Dean Edridge wrote: Perhaps you should suggest to the XHTML 2 working group (private, not open to the public) Actually the XHTML2 working group is as open as the HTML working group. Anyone can join. http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/32107/instructions Thanks for putting me straight there Ian. I did actually try to join the XHTML 2 group the other day but must have gone through the wrong process and ended up with this message: Only AC Representative, selected Invited Experts and Staff Contacts can use this form to join or leave a group ; since you're not logged as any of those, you won't be allowed to submit this form. Additional instructions for joining this group http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/32107/instructions are available. I will attempt joining again and see how I go. Thanks -- Dean Edridge http://www.zealmedia.co.nz/
Re: Problem installing django on windows
Ahik wrote: > Hi, > It seems that 'python' is not in your path. > > Try to locate the the path for python.exe. It might be something like: > C:\Python25\python.exe > In this case you can type the following: > C:\django\testproject>C:\Python25\python.exe manage.py runserver > It should work. > > Later, you can add the python path (C:\Python25 in the above example) > to your environment. > > Ahik > > On Sep 12, 7:12 am, Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi >> I'm having trouble getting jdango working on windows XP. >> I've been following the tutorial on:http://thinkhole.org/wp/django-on- >> windows/ >> I have installed all the latest versions of progams that are mentioned >> in the tutorial. >> but have trouble getting the demo page to work. >> >> I get to this part: >> >> C:\Documents and Settings\HP_Administrator>cd C:\ >> >> C:\>cd django >> >> C:\django>django-admin.py startproject testproject >> >> C:\django>cd testproject >> >> C:\django\testproject>python manage.py runserver >> >> but then I get an error saying: >> >> 'python' is not recognized as an internal or external command, >> operable program or batch file. >> C:\django\testproject> >> >> Any help appreciated >> Thanks, Dean >> Thanks a lot Ahik. That worked. Thanks very much. Regards, Dean -- Dean Edridge http://www.zealmedia.co.nz/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Personally, I find 16px text far too large for comfortable reading. That's fine. Using firefox? go to: tools - options - content - Default font: size 14 or even smaller if it suits you. -- Dean Edridge http://www.zealmedia.co.nz/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Assuming that viewers of your site have not changed the settings on
their software to suit their eyesight or their general preferences is wrong.
By giving users: body{font-size:100%;} you are doing the best you can at
your end, and It's up to them to ensure they have correctly configured
their browser to suit their eyesight or preferences.
I have my laptop set at 1024x768.
With Firefox I have the font size set at 16px.
That means that when I view a web page, I am saying to firefox: Show me
this web page, and show the main text at 16 pixels and scale the other
text (h1, h2, h3, h4) around this base font-size setting.
Setting this in your css sheet:
body{font-size:100%;}
h1 {font-size: 145%;}
h2 {font-size: 132%;}
h3 {font-size: 125%;}
h4 {font-size: 115%;}
h5 {font-size: 102%;}
h6 {font-size: 100%;}
p, ul, ol, blockquote, pre {font-size:100%;}
ensures that this is possible.
note: I think the code suggested was originally from: Gunlaug Sørtun
http://www.gunlaug.no
--
Dean Edridge
http://www.zealmedia.co.nz/
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Jixor - Stephen I wrote:
Wouldn't all those heading sizes would look fairly similar, especially
102%?
Dean Edridge wrote:
Assuming that viewers of your site have not changed the settings on
their software to suit their eyesight or their general preferences is
wrong.
By giving users: body{font-size:100%;} you are doing the best you can
at your end, and It's up to them to ensure they have correctly
configured their browser to suit their eyesight or preferences.
I have my laptop set at 1024x768.
With Firefox I have the font size set at 16px.
That means that when I view a web page, I am saying to firefox: Show
me this web page, and show the main text at 16 pixels and scale the
other text (h1, h2, h3, h4) around this base font-size setting.
Setting this in your css sheet:
body{font-size:100%;}
h1 {font-size: 145%;}
h2 {font-size: 132%;}
h3 {font-size: 125%;}
h4 {font-size: 115%;}
h5 {font-size: 108%;}
h6 {font-size: 100%;}
p, ul, ol, blockquote, pre {font-size:100%;}
ensures that this is possible.
note: I think the code suggested was originally from: Gunlaug Sørtun
http://www.gunlaug.no
The heading sizes aren't that important, you can change these to what
ever you like (I just changed the h5 to 108%). They were put there as an
example. It's the main font-size (body{font-size:100%;}) that is
important.
On my wide screen desktop monitor (1440pixels x 900pixels) I have the
default font-size in firefox set to 18pixels. Having this set ensures
that all well designed sites scale well and look great on my large screen.
// Here's where I get a bit off topic and start talking about the liquid
web in general.
If anyone's using a large monitor (by my definition larger than
1024x768) you should never change the resolution of the screen down to
suit badly designed websites or other poorly thought out software.
Instead, change the settings of your OS to suit the screen size. If you
are using XP, do this: Right click on the desktop click - appearance -
Font-size and select large Fonts - click apply.
This does not change the font-size for all programs though, you will
have to change these individually.
And if you come across sites that are only 760pixels wide and only take
up half the screen. That's not your problem, they are poorly designed sites.
All website designs should fit in to one of the following categories:
Liquid-layout
Fluid-layout
Vector-layout
It's not impossible, just look at Trademe [1] biggest site in New
Zealand and no horizontal scrollbars till under 800x600 resolution
And there's simple liquid layouts such as the php.net site [2] and
w3.org [3]
[1] http://www.trademe.co.nz/
[2] http://www.php.net/
[3] http://www.w3.org/
--
Dean Edridge
http://www.zealmedia.co.nz/
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] (X)HTML Best Practice Sheet goes live - correct link
Frank Palinkas wrote: Hi Lars, Thanks for the hard work and time taken to do this. It's appreciated. May I make one suggestion please? The character reference (#10003;) you're using for the checkmark symbol does not render in IE6 or below. However, it does render perfectly in the latest versions of Opera, Firefox, Netscape and Safari for Windows. IE 6 and below renders it as a plain square box. If you don't mind this occurring in IE 6 and below, then please ignore my comment. If it is of importance, then maybe using a plus (+) sign (#043;) or another cross-browser recognized character reference will do. Thanks again, Kind regards, Frank M. Palinkas Microsoft M.V.P. - Windows Help W3C HTML Working Group (H.T.M.L.W.G.) - Invited Expert M.C.P., M.C.T., M.C.S.E., M.C.D.B.A., A+ Senior Technical Communicator Web Standards Accessibility Designer website: http://frank.helpware.net email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member: Society for Technical Communications (S.T.C.) Guild of Accessible Web Designers (G.A.W.D.S.) Web Standards Group (W.S.G.) Supergroup Trading Ltd. Sandhurst, Gauteng, South Africa website: http://www.supergroup.co.za Work: +27 011 523 4931 Home: +27 011 455 5287 Fax:+27 011 455 3112 Mobile: +27 074 109 1908 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keryx Web Sent: Thursday, 09 August, 2007 22:57 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] (X)HTML Best Practice Sheet goes live - correct link Andrew Freedman skrev: Any chance that you could perhaps upload the page or post the correct link? Ooops! http://keryx.se/resources/html-elements.xhtml Sorry all! *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** But it's not supposed to work in ie5, 6 or 7. It's a XHTML document. Internet Explorer is rubbish, does not support Web Standards and has zero support for XHTML. Hopefully IE8 will support XHTML, but don't hold your breath. Dean Edridge *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] (X)HTML Best Practice Sheet goes live - correct link
David Dorward wrote: On 10 Aug 2007, at 08:53, Dean Edridge wrote: But it's not supposed to work in ie5, 6 or 7. It's a XHTML document. But why? I can't see anything that could not be expressed in HTML in that document. Internet Explorer is rubbish Its improving. does not support Web Standards Nor does anything else, at least not completely. IE might be lagging behind, but its catching up. and has zero support for XHTML. I'd far rather see bugs fixed then new features added. Client side XHTML support would bring benefits to far fewer authors then fixing all the interesting CSS bugs would. David. New features added. Really? I don't think I'm asking too much to be able to use features that have been W3C recommendations for 8 years. Nor was I suggesting that bug fixing be overlooked as these new features be added. It's not for you or anyone else to decide that XHTML has little benefits and then push for the deprecation of it. Pretending that Internet Explorer has not held back the progress of the web is not in the best interest of Web Standards in general. It's 2007, surely people should be able to use XHTML and SVG by now. Dean Edridge *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [whatwg] require img dimensions to be correct?
Regarding: img dimensions to be correct? Sander Tekelenburg wrote: We struggled with this for the WRI requirements[*]. We seem to be settling on requiring a width and height to be specified in HTML, because as nice as CSS is, Web pages must not be CSS-dependant. Even if the author means to provide CSS, it might not be available (network/server error; saving and local viewing of the HTML file; User CSS overrides) (A followup requirement would probably have to be that when CSS is available, and specifies IMG size in px, it must be the same as the size specified in the HTML.) The only other sensible option would be to completely disallow width and height in HTML. But that will result in 'jumpy rendering' because browsers can't allocate the proper rendering space until the image's dimensions are known. [*] http://webrepair.org/02strategy/02certification/01requirements.php Btw, this is our initial take. We very much welcome community feedback. I don't really think this is a good idea IMHO. Firstly, the chance of someone not being able to access the CSS for a web page is I'm guessing, pretty slim. The chance of someone not being able to access this CSS, *and* actually noticing or caring that the images aren't rendered correctly (if in fact they aren't), is very very slim. So I don't think it's really worth throwing away the benefits of CSS just for a very rare occasion like this that would probably not be of benefit to anyone anyway. Secondly, when scaling images you would normally just set the height, not the width. This ensures that the images proportions are kept intact, as specifying a width distorts the image. This being said I hope no one makes it a requirement to specify just the in-line height, as this would still create problems. For example if you had an images height set within the html to 100% of the parent elements height, and there was no CSS available to specify the parents height (for example a div), the user agent would probably just stretch the image to the full height of the screen (FF doesn't do this, but IE and Opera do), therefore causing more problems than if you had just left all the styling in the CSS to begin with. So the long and the short of it IMO is to just use CSS and rely on the user-agent to show the page the best it can in the absence of CSS. regards, -- Dean Edridge
Re: [whatwg] require img dimensions to be correct?
Benjamin West wrote: On 3/16/07, Dean Edridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Firstly, the chance of someone not being able to access the CSS for a web page is I'm guessing, pretty slim. img style=height: 50px; width: 50px; / Why is accessing CSS a problem? -Ben West I never said that accessing the CSS would be a problem. It was suggested earlier that in case it was, we should make it compulsory to set the width and height of images in-line. If you read my post it explains the problems of having a mix of in-line styling and styles in a CSS file, and suggests that styling should just be left in the CSS and not a mix of both. This is because, if there is no CSS available, the browser only has styling rules for some of the elements and this can sometimes be a problem. Dean Edridge
Re: [whatwg] require img dimensions to be correct?
Gareth Hay wrote: If i'm not mistaken, the idea of separation of content and style means you can use your own css, or even none at all, and still have the ability to view the content. If a page is dependent on the css, then, although in a separate file, it is fundamentally not separate at all, and we might as well just shove the css into the same html file anyway. Gareth On 16 Mar 2007, at 20:27, Benjamin West wrote: On 3/16/07, Dean Edridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Firstly, the chance of someone not being able to access the CSS for a web page is I'm guessing, pretty slim. img style=height: 50px; width: 50px; / Why is accessing CSS a problem? -Ben West --No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date: 15/03/2007 11:27 a.m. I never proposed that a web page should be dependant on CSS, nor did I say that there shouldn't be a separation of content and style. Quite the opposite. I said that if there is no CSS available for an img tag, the browser should just display the image the best it can(and they do this quite well already, in my experience). And that this very rare occasion of CSS failure does not warrant the mandatory requirement of in-line styling of the img tag. Dean Edridge
Re: [whatwg] Attributes vs. Elements
On 12 Mar 2007, at 20:19, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
Case:
td a href=1.htmxyz/a/td
td a href=2.htmxyz-xyz-xyz/a/td
is perfectly valid from some abstract semantic machine
point of view but for human these two cells are not
equal. At least hit area is different. And visual perception too.
All you need to do is add this to your CSS:
td a:link { display: block; }
and the whole cell content area will become clickable (i.e. the area
interior to the padding. don't use padding on the cell if you want to
run the clickable area up to the cell's border)
Is this normal behaviour according to the css spec? Because I use this
method a lot but with li not td. I've never been able to get it to work
on Opera though. I just thought that it was a case of Opera sticking to
the spec and the others not. Once the cursor is over the text in a it's
fine, but just hovering over the li does nothing.
Dean
