Re: [whatwg] Forcing orientation in content
Not sure if WHATWG is doing anything, but in the W3C there ishttps://dvcs.w3.org/hg/screen-orientation/raw-file/tip/Overview.html in the Web Apps group Actually I personally have a little more concerns on this API. First of all, some of current mobile browsers provide `orientation` as a number, whose value is among 0, 90 and -90, how would the current API conform to the new one? Secondly, I'd love to see a `orientationLocked` property to check if the orientation of page is locked, this is for several reasons: - It is better to keep unified with the fullscreen API which gives a `fullscreenEnabled` property - I'm a developer on 3rd-party script (e.g. ads), we investigated a bunch of users before and found out that once if a device locks its orientation, they have very little chance to unlock it, so we can provide more accurate and suitable content to a locked screen resolution, it would be much help if detection for whether the orientation is locked is possible. Last, How would it behave if my web app requests orientation locking but is placed in an `iframe` element and the parent browsing context is locked in another orientation? thanks 在 2013-4-18，上午7:03，Charles McCathie Nevile cha...@yandex-team.ru 写道： Not sure if WHATWG is doing anything, but in the W3C there ishttps://dvcs.w3.org/hg/screen-orientation/raw-file/tip/Overview.html in the Web Apps group (by Mounir, who works on Firefox OS as a day job) I expect to know a bit more about the implementation status of this in about a week, when the group has a face to face meeting.
Re: [whatwg] Forcing orientation in content
On 2013-05-03 08:29, Gray Zhang wrote: Not sure if WHATWG is doing anything, but in the W3C there ishttps://dvcs.w3.org/hg/screen-orientation/raw-file/tip/Overview.html in the Web Apps group ... How would it behave if my web app requests orientation locking but is placed in an `iframe` element and the parent browsing context is locked in another orientation? The logical behavior would be that the parent element takes precedence, and the child (the iframe in this case) retains it's aspect ratio if possible. R. -- Roger Rescator Hågensen. Freelancer - http://www.EmSai.net/
Re: [whatwg] font security on measureText
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote: Reading the Origin spec [1]: For fonts: The origin of a downloadable Web font is an alias to the origin of the absolute URL used to obtain the font (after any redirects). [CSSFONTS] The origin of a locally installed system font is an alias to the origin of the Document in which that font is being used. Fonts do not have an effective script origin. 1. That assumes tainted cross-origin as a fetching mode. http://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-request-mode Whereas you assume it uses CORS. 2. That really ought to be defined by CSS directly. Part of the problem here is that CSS lacks a bunch of text. What do you mean by that? Is this underspecified? CSS should say it fetches using mode CORS. That will result in a either a response marked CORS-same-origin or a network error. Fonts can be then be assumed to be safe as there is no way to obtain a tainted font. (However, it is my understanding not all browsers are aligned on this at the moment, so you might want to make sure that happens first.) -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] font security on measureText
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: The text at http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-fonts/#default-same-origin-restriction and http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-fonts/#allowing-cross-origin-font-loading predates your introduction of the mode values, but clearly corresponds to the CORS mode, no? Yeah that text sort of works, though fails in the face of redirects and fails to the right thing for data URLs. But indeed, the intent is clear. And while browsers are not aligned yet, they did plan to align last I heard, in that their representatives in the WG had agreed to the above text. Okay. Of course it's possible some of the browsers involved are just planning to ignore the spec altogether without bothering to argue to get it changed to what they think is the right thing. Let's hope not. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
[whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
Hi The past few days I've been working on updating the HTML differences from HTML4 document, which is a deliverable of the W3C HTML WG but is now also available as a version with the WHATWG style sheet: http://html-differences.whatwg.org/ Review welcome. Please file bugs. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
[whatwg] suggestions for the Notifications API (http://notifications.spec.whatwg.org/)
I played a little bit with the Notification API and I have a couple of suggestions (I tried the chrome implementation with Mozille hacks jsFiddle http://jsfiddle.net/robnyman/TuJHx/) for improvement (at least in my view) or a more consistent API as web developer: 1. Having a way to check for the current permission without initiating a new Notification object first. something like webkit has (I'm not sure it's not deprecated) window.webkitNotification.checkPermission() I saw this isn't in the api, and I think having this would be a great *Real life usecase example:*I would like to show different content or apply different logic for someone who didn't explicitly granted permission, but didn't deny it either, without having to show the confirmation dialog first and frighten them away. 2.having a collection to iterate over notification instances (from my page only). 3.having to set the title only when initiating the Notification object, instead in the dictionary NotificationOptions Iooks inconsistent to me. my instinctive attempt was to set the title together with the rest of the notification options. but that won't work. I think it belongs there (or at least, also there) I would also like to say that this can be a really useful api, and you're doing a great work with it! thanks everyone for the great job!
[whatwg] suggestions for the Notifications API (http://notifications.spec.whatwg.org/)
I played a little bit with the Notification API and I have a couple of suggestions (I tried the chrome implementation with Mozille hacks jsFiddle http://jsfiddle.net/robnyman/TuJHx/) for improvement (at least in my view) or a more consistent API as web developer: 1. Having a way to check for the current permission without initiating a new Notification object first. something like webkit has (I'm not sure it's not deprecated) window.webkitNotification.checkPermission() I saw this isn't in the api, and I think having this would be a great *Real life usecase example:*I would like to show different content or apply different logic for someone who didn't explicitly granted permission, but didn't deny it either, without having to show the confirmation dialog first and frighten them away. 2.having a collection to iterate over notification instances (from my page only). 3.having to set the title only when initiating the Notification object, instead in the dictionary NotificationOptions Iooks inconsistent to me. my instinctive attempt was to set the title together with the rest of the notification options. but that won't work. I think it belongs there (or at least, also there) I would also like to say that this can be a really useful api, and you're doing a great work with it! thanks everyone for the great job!
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
2013-05-03 18:37, Simon Pieters wrote: The past few days I've been working on updating the HTML differences from HTML4 document, which is a deliverable of the W3C HTML WG but is now also available as a version with the WHATWG style sheet: http://html-differences.whatwg.org/ I think you should start from making the title sensible. HTML differences from HTML4 is too esoteric even in this context. Think about a heading FOO differences from FOO9. Wouldn't you say that some FOOist is writing very obscurely? Besides, the spelling is HTML 4. Especially if you think HTML 4 is ancient history, retain the historical spelling. Yucca
Re: [whatwg] suggestions for the Notifications API (http://notifications.spec.whatwg.org/)
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:48 PM, alonn alonis...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Having a way to check for the current permission without initiating a new Notification object first. something like webkit has (I'm not sure it's not deprecated) window.webkitNotification.checkPermission() I saw this isn't in the api, and I think having this would be a great That would be Notification.permission. You can request using Notification.requestPermission(callback). 2.having a collection to iterate over notification instances (from my page only). We might get this at some point. See the recent notifications threads. 3.having to set the title only when initiating the Notification object, instead in the dictionary NotificationOptions Iooks inconsistent to me. my instinctive attempt was to set the title together with the rest of the notification options. but that won't work. I think it belongs there (or at least, also there) Only title is required, basically. It's similar to how new Event() behaves. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] suggestions for the Notifications API (http://notifications.spec.whatwg.org/)
alonn alonis...@gmail.com schrieb am Fri, 3 May 2013 18:50:36 +0300: 1. Having a way to check for the current permission without initiating a new Notification object first. something like webkit has (I'm not sure it's not deprecated) window.webkitNotification.checkPermission() I saw this isn't in the api, and I think having this would be a great Scenario: “You need to enable notifications to view this web site.” With less sarcasm: I think this can and will be horribly abused. -- Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net
Re: [whatwg] font security on measureText
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote: Reading the Origin spec [1]: For fonts: The origin of a downloadable Web font is an alias to the origin of the absolute URL used to obtain the font (after any redirects). [CSSFONTS] The origin of a locally installed system font is an alias to the origin of the Document in which that font is being used. Fonts do not have an effective script origin. 1. That assumes tainted cross-origin as a fetching mode. http://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-request-mode Whereas you assume it uses CORS. What do you mean by 'you'? The link in Canvas from the WhatWG spec is to the above section (Click on the 'origin' link here [1]) 2. That really ought to be defined by CSS directly. Part of the problem here is that CSS lacks a bunch of text. What do you mean by that? Is this underspecified? CSS should say it fetches using mode CORS. That will result in a either a response marked CORS-same-origin or a network error. Fonts can be then be assumed to be safe as there is no way to obtain a tainted font. OK. So it seems that the canvas spec should NOT say that the font has to be the same origin. It should refer to CSS portion that describes this fetching or be silent. (However, it is my understanding not all browsers are aligned on this at the moment, so you might want to make sure that happens first.) 1: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-canvas-element.html#dom-context-2d-measuretext
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
Good day, Let us start with a definition: es·o·ter·ic /ˌesəˈterik/ Adjective Intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest. The document Simon delivered and formatted is useful to a wide range of audiences interested in HTML and how it differs from a previous named release of the HTML roadmap, so I'm not sure calling the title of the document esoteric is accurate. Regardless of that, if the title is obscure, could you please offer up title suggestions so that your posting becomes more constructive? Keep in mind that an existing document [1] on the whatwg.org site references HTML version 4 as HTML4 already, so there is a precedent set for this. I do not think this will confuse anybody, and it would have to be changed throughout documents on the entire site to be consistent. I'd like to propose that both nomenclatures are valid when referring to the entire HTML 4 specification. The important thing (IMHO) to remember here regarding the title is that HTML released two subversions of HTML 4, HTML 4.0 [2] and HTML 4.01 [3]. The document must be intended as a differentiation between the entire version of HTML4, since it does not specify a specific subversion to diff? However, it links to the HTML 4.01 specification in the References section. If this is *only* a diff between HTML 4.01 and the living standard, perhaps the title should then be HTML differences from HTML 4.01 so that the document has additional meaning. If there are differences between HTML 4.0, HTML 4.01, *and* HTML5 in the same section of the document, those should probably be appropriately marked. --Xaxio References: [1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#history-1 [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/ [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/ On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote: 2013-05-03 18:37, Simon Pieters wrote: The past few days I've been working on updating the HTML differences from HTML4 document, which is a deliverable of the W3C HTML WG but is now also available as a version with the WHATWG style sheet: http://html-differences.**whatwg.org/http://html-differences.whatwg.org/ I think you should start from making the title sensible. HTML differences from HTML4 is too esoteric even in this context. Think about a heading FOO differences from FOO9. Wouldn't you say that some FOOist is writing very obscurely? Besides, the spelling is HTML 4. Especially if you think HTML 4 is ancient history, retain the historical spelling. Yucca
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
The way I interpreted it, Jukka meant that the title could be something more flowing, like Differences between HTML4 and HTML(5). Gordon On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Xaxio Brandish xaxiobrand...@gmail.com wrote: Good day, Let us start with a definition: es·o·ter·ic /ˌesəˈterik/ Adjective Intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest. The document Simon delivered and formatted is useful to a wide range of audiences interested in HTML and how it differs from a previous named release of the HTML roadmap, so I'm not sure calling the title of the document esoteric is accurate. Regardless of that, if the title is obscure, could you please offer up title suggestions so that your posting becomes more constructive? Keep in mind that an existing document [1] on the whatwg.org site references HTML version 4 as HTML4 already, so there is a precedent set for this. I do not think this will confuse anybody, and it would have to be changed throughout documents on the entire site to be consistent. I'd like to propose that both nomenclatures are valid when referring to the entire HTML 4 specification. The important thing (IMHO) to remember here regarding the title is that HTML released two subversions of HTML 4, HTML 4.0 [2] and HTML 4.01 [3]. The document must be intended as a differentiation between the entire version of HTML4, since it does not specify a specific subversion to diff? However, it links to the HTML 4.01 specification in the References section. If this is *only* a diff between HTML 4.01 and the living standard, perhaps the title should then be HTML differences from HTML 4.01 so that the document has additional meaning. If there are differences between HTML 4.0, HTML 4.01, *and* HTML5 in the same section of the document, those should probably be appropriately marked. --Xaxio References: [1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#history-1 [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/ [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/ On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote: 2013-05-03 18:37, Simon Pieters wrote: The past few days I've been working on updating the HTML differences from HTML4 document, which is a deliverable of the W3C HTML WG but is now also available as a version with the WHATWG style sheet: http://html-differences.**whatwg.org/http://html-differences.whatwg.org/ I think you should start from making the title sensible. HTML differences from HTML4 is too esoteric even in this context. Think about a heading FOO differences from FOO9. Wouldn't you say that some FOOist is writing very obscurely? Besides, the spelling is HTML 4. Especially if you think HTML 4 is ancient history, retain the historical spelling. Yucca -- Gordon P. Hemsley m...@gphemsley.org http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
Ah. The document scope [1] explains why it uses HTML in the title as opposed to HTML5 or HTML(5). --Xaxio References: [1] http://html-differences.whatwg.org/#scope On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Gordon P. Hemsley gphems...@gmail.comwrote: The way I interpreted it, Jukka meant that the title could be something more flowing, like Differences between HTML4 and HTML(5). Gordon On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Xaxio Brandish xaxiobrand...@gmail.com wrote: Good day, Let us start with a definition: es·o·ter·ic /ˌesəˈterik/ Adjective Intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest. The document Simon delivered and formatted is useful to a wide range of audiences interested in HTML and how it differs from a previous named release of the HTML roadmap, so I'm not sure calling the title of the document esoteric is accurate. Regardless of that, if the title is obscure, could you please offer up title suggestions so that your posting becomes more constructive? Keep in mind that an existing document [1] on the whatwg.org site references HTML version 4 as HTML4 already, so there is a precedent set for this. I do not think this will confuse anybody, and it would have to be changed throughout documents on the entire site to be consistent. I'd like to propose that both nomenclatures are valid when referring to the entire HTML 4 specification. The important thing (IMHO) to remember here regarding the title is that HTML released two subversions of HTML 4, HTML 4.0 [2] and HTML 4.01 [3]. The document must be intended as a differentiation between the entire version of HTML4, since it does not specify a specific subversion to diff? However, it links to the HTML 4.01 specification in the References section. If this is *only* a diff between HTML 4.01 and the living standard, perhaps the title should then be HTML differences from HTML 4.01 so that the document has additional meaning. If there are differences between HTML 4.0, HTML 4.01, *and* HTML5 in the same section of the document, those should probably be appropriately marked. --Xaxio References: [1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#history-1 [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/ [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/ On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote: 2013-05-03 18:37, Simon Pieters wrote: The past few days I've been working on updating the HTML differences from HTML4 document, which is a deliverable of the W3C HTML WG but is now also available as a version with the WHATWG style sheet: http://html-differences.**whatwg.org/ http://html-differences.whatwg.org/ I think you should start from making the title sensible. HTML differences from HTML4 is too esoteric even in this context. Think about a heading FOO differences from FOO9. Wouldn't you say that some FOOist is writing very obscurely? Besides, the spelling is HTML 4. Especially if you think HTML 4 is ancient history, retain the historical spelling. Yucca -- Gordon P. Hemsley m...@gphemsley.org http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
It is my understanding that the W3C version lists HTML5 and the WHATWG version uses HTML. That was what I intended by HTML(5). I didn't mean the parentheses were included literally. Gordon On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Xaxio Brandish xaxiobrand...@gmail.com wrote: Ah. The document scope [1] explains why it uses HTML in the title as opposed to HTML5 or HTML(5). --Xaxio References: [1] http://html-differences.whatwg.org/#scope On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Gordon P. Hemsley gphems...@gmail.com wrote: The way I interpreted it, Jukka meant that the title could be something more flowing, like Differences between HTML4 and HTML(5). Gordon On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Xaxio Brandish xaxiobrand...@gmail.com wrote: Good day, Let us start with a definition: es·o·ter·ic /ˌesəˈterik/ Adjective Intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest. The document Simon delivered and formatted is useful to a wide range of audiences interested in HTML and how it differs from a previous named release of the HTML roadmap, so I'm not sure calling the title of the document esoteric is accurate. Regardless of that, if the title is obscure, could you please offer up title suggestions so that your posting becomes more constructive? Keep in mind that an existing document [1] on the whatwg.org site references HTML version 4 as HTML4 already, so there is a precedent set for this. I do not think this will confuse anybody, and it would have to be changed throughout documents on the entire site to be consistent. I'd like to propose that both nomenclatures are valid when referring to the entire HTML 4 specification. The important thing (IMHO) to remember here regarding the title is that HTML released two subversions of HTML 4, HTML 4.0 [2] and HTML 4.01 [3]. The document must be intended as a differentiation between the entire version of HTML4, since it does not specify a specific subversion to diff? However, it links to the HTML 4.01 specification in the References section. If this is *only* a diff between HTML 4.01 and the living standard, perhaps the title should then be HTML differences from HTML 4.01 so that the document has additional meaning. If there are differences between HTML 4.0, HTML 4.01, *and* HTML5 in the same section of the document, those should probably be appropriately marked. --Xaxio References: [1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#history-1 [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/ [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/ On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote: 2013-05-03 18:37, Simon Pieters wrote: The past few days I've been working on updating the HTML differences from HTML4 document, which is a deliverable of the W3C HTML WG but is now also available as a version with the WHATWG style sheet: http://html-differences.**whatwg.org/http://html-differences.whatwg.org/ I think you should start from making the title sensible. HTML differences from HTML4 is too esoteric even in this context. Think about a heading FOO differences from FOO9. Wouldn't you say that some FOOist is writing very obscurely? Besides, the spelling is HTML 4. Especially if you think HTML 4 is ancient history, retain the historical spelling. Yucca -- Gordon P. Hemsley m...@gphemsley.org http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/ -- Gordon P. Hemsley m...@gphemsley.org http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
I see what you're saying. The document title on the WHATWG site is titled based on the W3C document [1]. However, I see no reason to keep the same title structure; it will be easy to find either way. In that case, Differences between HTML and HTML4 sounds nice as well. The only reservation I have is that the from preposition connotates that HTML follows HTML4 (which it does, in a manner of speaking), whereas the between preposition implies a comparison among similar but equal ideas. --Xaxio References: [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/ On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Gordon P. Hemsley gphems...@gmail.comwrote: It is my understanding that the W3C version lists HTML5 and the WHATWG version uses HTML. That was what I intended by HTML(5). I didn't mean the parentheses were included literally. Gordon On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Xaxio Brandish xaxiobrand...@gmail.com wrote: Ah. The document scope [1] explains why it uses HTML in the title as opposed to HTML5 or HTML(5). --Xaxio References: [1] http://html-differences.whatwg.org/#scope On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Gordon P. Hemsley gphems...@gmail.com wrote: The way I interpreted it, Jukka meant that the title could be something more flowing, like Differences between HTML4 and HTML(5). Gordon On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Xaxio Brandish xaxiobrand...@gmail.com wrote: Good day, Let us start with a definition: es·o·ter·ic /ˌesəˈterik/ Adjective Intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest. The document Simon delivered and formatted is useful to a wide range of audiences interested in HTML and how it differs from a previous named release of the HTML roadmap, so I'm not sure calling the title of the document esoteric is accurate. Regardless of that, if the title is obscure, could you please offer up title suggestions so that your posting becomes more constructive? Keep in mind that an existing document [1] on the whatwg.org site references HTML version 4 as HTML4 already, so there is a precedent set for this. I do not think this will confuse anybody, and it would have to be changed throughout documents on the entire site to be consistent. I'd like to propose that both nomenclatures are valid when referring to the entire HTML 4 specification. The important thing (IMHO) to remember here regarding the title is that HTML released two subversions of HTML 4, HTML 4.0 [2] and HTML 4.01 [3]. The document must be intended as a differentiation between the entire version of HTML4, since it does not specify a specific subversion to diff? However, it links to the HTML 4.01 specification in the References section. If this is *only* a diff between HTML 4.01 and the living standard, perhaps the title should then be HTML differences from HTML 4.01 so that the document has additional meaning. If there are differences between HTML 4.0, HTML 4.01, *and* HTML5 in the same section of the document, those should probably be appropriately marked. --Xaxio References: [1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#history-1 [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/ [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/ On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote: 2013-05-03 18:37, Simon Pieters wrote: The past few days I've been working on updating the HTML differences from HTML4 document, which is a deliverable of the W3C HTML WG but is now also available as a version with the WHATWG style sheet: http://html-differences.**whatwg.org/ http://html-differences.whatwg.org/ I think you should start from making the title sensible. HTML differences from HTML4 is too esoteric even in this context. Think about a heading FOO differences from FOO9. Wouldn't you say that some FOOist is writing very obscurely? Besides, the spelling is HTML 4. Especially if you think HTML 4 is ancient history, retain the historical spelling. Yucca -- Gordon P. Hemsley m...@gphemsley.org http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/ -- Gordon P. Hemsley m...@gphemsley.org http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
2013-05-03 21:19, Xaxio Brandish wrote: Ah. The document scope [1] explains why it uses HTML in the title as opposed to HTML5 or HTML(5). No, it only says *that* it uses HTML to refer to the W3C HTML5 specification, W3C HTML5.1 specification, and the WHATWG HTML standard. *Why* it does so is not addressed at all, though the reader might infer that people just couldn't agree on a name, after WHATWG decided to abandon the name HTML5. HTML has been used through the ages to denote a markup language (and associated definitions) in a broad sense, as opposite to specific versions. This is still the everyday meaning. And a title of a work should be understandable without reading some explanation inside it, saying that some common term has an uncommon meaning. If you can't agree on a proper name, at least call it something like modern HTML. Or, perhaps more realistically, near-future HTML. It's not clear to me why the document is needed in the first place. It would seem to be much more relevant to document in detail the differences between HTML 5, HTML 5.1, and WHATWG Living HTML than to write a rather general document about the differences between them (as if they were a single and stabile specification) and HTML 4. Yucca
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
No, it only says *that* it uses HTML to refer to the W3C HTML5 specification, W3C HTML5.1 specification, and the WHATWG HTML standard. *Why* it does so is not addressed at all You are correct. The why is something that should be addressed. Perhaps the document could read: This document covers the W3C HTML5 specification, W3C HTML5.1 specification, and the WHATWG HTML standard. In order to simplify the readability of this document, these are referred to as if they were a single specification: the HTML specification or simply HTML when something applies equally to all of them; otherwise, they are called out explicitly. The WHATWG differentiates, when necessary, by describing the constantly evolving version of HTML as the HTML Living Standard. The HTML that you describe is this HTML -- it does not refer to specific versions, but the overall language as it stands currently. The topical document is good to have as a learning tool, and to broaden the understanding of when (and sometimes why) certain changes were made between HTML and one of its previous subversions. As the WHATWG specification [1] states, There are numerous differences between this specification (the HTML Living Standard) and the W3C version, some minor, some major. Unfortunately these are not currently accurately documented anywhere, so there is no way to know which are intentional and which are not. If you believe that documenting the (constantly evolving) differences between HTML and its HTML5 and HTML5.1 subsets would be relevant, please do so! It would be a great thing to be able to reference such a document. --Xaxio References: [1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#is-this-html5 ? On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fiwrote: 2013-05-03 21:19, Xaxio Brandish wrote: Ah. The document scope [1] explains why it uses HTML in the title as opposed to HTML5 or HTML(5). No, it only says *that* it uses HTML to refer to the W3C HTML5 specification, W3C HTML5.1 specification, and the WHATWG HTML standard. *Why* it does so is not addressed at all, though the reader might infer that people just couldn't agree on a name, after WHATWG decided to abandon the name HTML5. HTML has been used through the ages to denote a markup language (and associated definitions) in a broad sense, as opposite to specific versions. This is still the everyday meaning. And a title of a work should be understandable without reading some explanation inside it, saying that some common term has an uncommon meaning. If you can't agree on a proper name, at least call it something like modern HTML. Or, perhaps more realistically, near-future HTML. It's not clear to me why the document is needed in the first place. It would seem to be much more relevant to document in detail the differences between HTML 5, HTML 5.1, and WHATWG Living HTML than to write a rather general document about the differences between them (as if they were a single and stabile specification) and HTML 4. Yucca
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
Xaxio wrote: If you believe that documenting the (constantly evolving) differences between HTML and its HTML5 and HTML5.1 subsets would be relevant, please do so! It would be a great thing to be able to reference such a document. I have made a start on a document http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/W3C-WHATWG-Differences -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
http://html-differences.whatwg.org/ Thanks Simon! Unrelated to the rest of the conversation, could we reconsider whether every version of this document needs to list *all* document-internal changes, in section 6? I’d argue it suffices to list the changes to the last version of the document. This keeps the document length at bay while it’s still possible for people who are actually interested in all changes to go back and check for them. Cheers, Jens. -- Jens O. Meiert http://meiert.com/en/
Re: [whatwg] Alignment of empty buttons
fantasai pointed out that CSS does specify this: If the box does not have a baseline, align the bottom margin edge with the parent's baseline. (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#propdef-vertical-align) Sounds like there's a bug in Firefox and (still) in Chrome dev. -christian On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Christian Biesinger cbiesin...@google.com wrote: Hi, I had to recently investigate issues with the alignment of empty buttons, i.e. button/button, and I noticed some browser differences. Specifically, take this testcase: http://plexode.com/eval3/#s=aekVQXANJVQMbAx14Hz1PdQFcAYMbARIYUVkcAYYOfp8Zo6WFn6KkXphDVlVVUE+bnZ8aEawBsk8dEJaYmB11HwEdtLa4H8PNt08fA14A Where should the button be positioned relative to the input field (or if you prefer, the baseline of the block)? Chrome dev, IE and Opera put the bottom of the button a bit higher than the bottom of the input, whereas Firefox seems to approximately center the button on the line (though without using vertical-align:middle). Chrome stable puts the top of the button slightly below the top of the input. Any suggestions for what the right behavior here is...? Note that this isn't an entirely academic question, because websites do use empty buttons (styling them with a width, height and background image). -christian
Re: [whatwg] [canvas] Proposal isPointInStroke(x, y)
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: We have recently implemented isPointInStroke(x,y) in Firefox (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=803124). This is a parallel to isPointInPath(x,y) and returns true if the point is inside the area contained by the stroking of a path. It was easily implemented on top of Direct2D, Cairo, Skia, and CoreGraphics and shouldn't be difficult for other systems. We implemented this to help support functionality needed for shumway (flash on html) Thanks for the heads-up. This is now in the spec as well. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] Alignment of empty buttons
On 5/3/13 7:07 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote: fantasai pointed out that CSS does specify this: If the box does not have a baseline, align the bottom margin edge with the parent's baseline. (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#propdef-vertical-align) Yes, but that _if_ the box does not have a baseline. CSS does not specify what replaced elements do or do not have baselines (and it's not completely clear even whether button is a replaced elements)... -Boris
