White Lynx wrote:
James Graham wrote:
I remain sceptical about this. However, if there is a serious effort to replace
MathML I believe the resulting language must fulfil the following requirements:
1) Easy conversion from standard LaTeX2e.
There are plenty of different packages and low level
L. David Baron wrote:
I don't see why the same attribute _shouldn't_ be used to determine the
type of data to allow, and whether to do spell checking or not. After all,
whether to spell-check is directly related to what kind of data it is.
This sounds a lot like object, which allowed for tons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Graham wrote:
In this situation, I imagine most scientists will simply write LaTeX and
use a tool to produce the output format that they desire.
I doubt because LaTeX has not the sufficient capabilities for a full web
design.
Let me address this one point
A couple of comments that are basically tangentially related to your
request.
Cow wrote:
* Right Click Edit in [ Dreamweaver, Nvu, MS Word...]
There's no reason an existing textarea couldn't offer this. Indeed I
once spent about 10 minutes failing to implement this is Mozilla using
XBL
Michel Fortin wrote:
Maybe I can add my view to this thread. I'm no user of MathML, nor do I
write often complicated equations on the web. I don't know much Latex
either.
One thing I know however is that the next time I'll have to put an
equation on a web page, I won't go looking for a
Jim Ley wrote:
On 2/5/06, James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Ley wrote:
On 2/5/06, James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DOM 3 XPath is of course only defined for XML, whilst it's no trouble
defining it for valid HTML, it's not currently, for this reason I
would prefer just having
Jim Ley wrote:
On 2/4/06, Brad Fults [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reasons why XBL is not currently an acceptable substitute are
numerous, including its extremely limited implementation,
So something with no implementation should be taken over something
with an existing implementation, that's
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:09:44 +0600, Anne van Kesteren
em has never been defined in a way that it could give entire paragraphs
emphasis. I'm not really saying anything is wrong about it, just that
has never been defined. Also, em was defined to be inline-level
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 19, 2006, at 14:05, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Without the alt attribute img becomes meaningless for devices
(and people) who can not interpreted images.
Good intention, yes, but let's consider the practice:
Suppose there is an authoring tool that has a design goal
Thomas Much wrote:
am 19.01.2006 23:50 Uhr schrieb Tyler Close unter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No, they'll just disable it
Why hasn't this happened to the HTTP Referer header?
There are browsers out there that let the user disable the HTTP referrer
(and enable it only for certain sites that
Eugene T.S. Wong wrote:
Hi all.
Here is an example that I'm working on now. I'm trying to make a
flyer/brochure to hand out to businesses after talking to them. I hope
that they will consider giving me merchandise to use as prizes for a
poker club that I'm trying to start. There is
Eugene T.S. Wong wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 04:39:29 -0800, Matthew Paul Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If authors -- or specifications -- try too hard to use a semantic
element, or to force other people to use it, it will be misused so
much that UAs can no longer trust the element to have
Matthew Raymond wrote:
James Graham wrote:
Most documents on the web are a direct result of view-source style
learning. If they're invalid rubbish, it's (at least partly) because
spec writers have erronously assumed that the majority of authors would
have enough of a clue to check things
Matthew Raymond wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Matthew Raymond wrote:
So, effectively, what you're saying about textarea accept=text/html
is the following:
1) The HTML in a textarea is unstyled (at least unstyled by the parent
document) unless styles or stylesheets are
Matthew Raymond wrote:
Is it possible to keep the two discussions chromeless windows and
modal dialogs separate, please?
If you're talking about modal dialogs, chromeless windows have to
come up because modal dialogs must be chromeless.
Why? I missed that somewhere... Anyway, browser
Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen wrote:
On 1 Jul 2005 at 11:44, Sanghyeon Seo wrote:
Concerning recent thread about modal and modeless windows, did anyone
mention showModalDialog already?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/methods/showmodaldialog.asp
I believe this
Karl Pongratz wrote:
Matthew Raymond wrote:
Every indication is that chromeless windows are on their way out.
I would be very sad if that would happen. Its currently the only way
to keep forms out of history and to unlock them from the back/next
button.
So I would suggest to keep
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, fantasai wrote:
Does this allow relative urls? Please specify explicitly.
It is specified very explicitly.
Sorry, how about stated very obviously? the IRI token does not
obviously exclude relative URLs unless one is in the habit of
Matthew Raymond wrote:
J. Graham wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Matthew Raymond wrote:
[Snip!]
| selectgroup classname=myclass1 multiple=False /
|
| table
| tbody
| tr
| [...header row...]
| /tr
| tr class=myclass1
| [...first row of block two data...]
| /tr
|
Aankhen wrote:
On 6/3/05, James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
It sounds like a problem
that needs an attribute for grouping elements (class would be fine
because all we're doing is grouping elements) and a way of specifying
the type of relationship that the elements in a particular
Aankhen wrote:
Reusing class has the added
advantage that authors are already familar with grouping items through
the class attribute and in particular, are already familar with
attaching style through class. This should make for a shallow learning
curve as using new features will be a simple
Matthew - I assume you meant to send this to the list?
Matthew Raymond wrote:
James Graham wrote:
Matthew Raymond wrote:
R.J.Koppes wrote:
I don't really see the advantage above using ordinary lists or form
controls
and css pseudoclasses like :target ,:focus and :active
Let's look
Matthew Raymond wrote:
If this is acceptable, does this negate the value of a potential
3d context for canvas in XHTML?
Presumably X3D:3D canvas is equivalent to SVG:2D canvas.
--
But if science you say still sounds too deep,
Just do what Beaker does, just shrug and 'Meep!'
-- Dr. Bunsen
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On May 13, 2005, at 06:28, Michael Gratton wrote:
Most web applications I have seen (certainly nearly every one written
in Java) do not differentiate between parameters provided by a GET or
a POST; you can do either and the application will work in the same way.
Of the
Sjoerd Visscher wrote:
James Graham wrote:
I should have stated explicitly that when I said marking the message
as read in some way I intended that the some way could be more
than just changing a message's unread flag, it could be e.g. moving
the message from the inbox to a Read messages folder
Matthew Thomas wrote:
All the Webmail application is doing is retaining visited/unvisited
presentation across whatever computer you log in to your Webmail from --
which is part of the point of it being a Web application in the first
place. So that's not really a good example of a non-idempotent
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Brad Neuberg wrote:
What should text/html flavor conformance checkers say about foo /?
Silently treat as foo as per SGML?
Silently treat as foo as per real world?
Report a warning?
Report an error?
What about foo/?
I am leaning towards reporting an error.
Unfortunately,
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
James Graham wrote:
Having namespaces only where conflicts occur strikes me as unwise -
in general the author is unlikely to know what the complete range of
values in a given spec is and it makes documents very fragile to
addition of data from new profiles and to addition
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Imagine you use publicly available profiles A and B.
Two months later, the author of profile A updates his profile to
include the definition baz, meaning something completely different
to the definition from profile B.
Well, I'd say the
Dean Jackson wrote:
On 13 Apr 2005, at 19:31, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Dean Jackson wrote:
Ok. Could you provide us with a list of features you believe need use
cases listed? That would be really helpful in creating such a
document.
All of them.
That's never going to happen, just
201 - 230 of 230 matches
Mail list logo
