On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the opposite. If I upgraded my site to this, I'd want nearly
all the links to onlyreplace. There's only a handful of same-origin
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Schuyler Duveen wha...@graffitiweb.org wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Schuyler Duveen
wha...@graffitiweb.org wrote:
The problem is that people will make links that refresh different parts
of a document, to the point
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Promoting this reply to top-level because I think it's crazy good.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
Aryeh Gregor schrieb:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Nelson Menezes
flying.mushr...@gmail.com wrote:
As an aside, there is a reason why AJAX has become so popular over the
past few years: it solves the specific UI-reset
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
Interesting idea! Anyway it introduces some consistency problems to solve,
e.g.:
Page1.html contains:
static id=fooI eat meat/static
and links
Promoting this reply to top-level because I think it's crazy good.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
As well, this still doesn't answer the question of what to do
A few public responses to issues/questions brought up in IRC: (thanks,
Aryeh and Philip!)
How is this better than iframe seamless and a target?
=
It's significantly better in multiple ways, actually.
1. iframes, like frames before them,
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
Yes it looks like an AJAX killer.
Well, for a particular common, useful pattern. AJAX will still be
alive and well for solving more general classes of problems.
Actually the problem I mentioned for Aryehs first proposal
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
(Also, in your examples you probably want @onlyreplace=content
navigation, since your nav is changing from page to page as well.
Indeed. Or, maybe I'd do it slightly differently, somehow like:
ul id=navigation
lia
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Yuvalik Webdesign
postmas...@yuvalik.org wrote:
From: Ian Hickson
Anyway, Perhaps this will do?
If a transparent element were to be removed but its descendants were
kept as they are, the content should remain conformant.
Or:
Any transparent
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Jeremy Keith jer...@adactio.com wrote:
Hixie wrote:
Then it might be nice to clarify this with a few words
in the spec, as The fieldset element represents a set of form controls
optionally grouped under a common name can be read as implying
structuring and
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
In 4.10.15.2 (disabled) and 4.10.5.2.3 (readonly) I can't find out what UAs
should submit if an element is disabled resp. readonly:
- nothing
- the default value
- any value that might have been entered, or assigned via DOM,
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:07:16 +0200, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com
wrote:
It seems like I'm not the only one confused by the difference between
disabled and readonly, then.
Disabled controls are not
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Yuvalik Webdesign
postmas...@yuvalik.org wrote:
I have an argument with a colleague of mine regarding Transparent elements.
He filed a bug regarding this in bugzilla and I wrote to the html5doctor
about it with a question, but neither action has answered our
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Yuvalik Webdesign
postmas...@yuvalik.org wrote:
From: Tab Atkins Jr.
Neither of you are *quite* right, but you are much closer to correct
than your colleague. A transparent element *must* contain the same
kinds of elements that its direct parent can
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Peter Brawley p...@artfulsoftware.com wrote:
A DB row is a tree node and it must be possible to block bookmarking of such
rows.
You keep implying that frames make it possible to block bookmarking.
They do not. Anyone can right click-open frame and then just
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Yuvalik Webdesign
postmas...@yuvalik.org wrote:
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch]
Please file specific bugs or send specific e-mails for each example you
think should be reworked; there are over 300 examples in the spec and
without knowing what is
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Yuvalik Webdesign
postmas...@yuvalik.org wrote:
From: Tab Atkins Jr.
iframe src=example1_jpg.html name=detail
p
A long story regarding the companies' origins and goals...
/p
div id=advert.../div
ul
lia target=detail href
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Yuvalik Webdesign
postmas...@yuvalik.org wrote:
B)
It also says for ASIDE that:
The aside element represents a section of a page that consists of content
that is tangentially related to the content around the aside element, and
which could be considered
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Yuvalik Webdesign
postmas...@yuvalik.org wrote:
From: Tab Atkins Jr.
Also, a side-bar, what is that, since side-bars are usually
separately layed-out and not always directly around the content.
You're interpreting around too strictly here. It means just
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
Comment on 4.10.5.2.11 The placeholder attribute:
What is the user-interaction behavior for this? Should the behavior be
specified, or should this be implementation-dependent?
I believe that there's currently no
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Keryx Web webmas...@keryx.se wrote:
I am arguing in favor of introducing a new element, which would be the zero
cost solution, since details is new anyway.
It's not a zero-cost solution, though. It introduces *another* nearly
identical heading-type element to
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 3:51 AM, Dean Edwards dean.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/10/2009 03:38, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Agreed, butdetails won't be usable at all in modern browsers
(without hacking support in via js) until everyone updates.
That's the whole point of this thread. We
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Keryx Web webmas...@keryx.se wrote:
2009-10-03 00:51, Tab Atkins Jr. skrev:
dt/dd only have parsing problems in IE6 and IE7. Both of them
*are*, finally, actually dropping off the radar. Windows 7 will
accelerate this as people upgrade with an OS that runs
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Dean Edwards dean.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/09/2009 21:55, Keryx Web wrote:
2009-09-29 21:53, Dean Edwards wrote:
Can't we just invent some new elements? We've already created 20
new ones. Two more won't hurt. :)
This has been discussed on the HTML5 WG
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Bruce Lawson bru...@opera.com wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:51:55 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
the use-case for figure and details are
sorta minimal anyway - it's enough that they can justify themselves,
but just barely.
Use case
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Dean Edwards dean.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
This will also affect the figure element.
Test case:
http://dean.edwards.name/test/details.html
Luckily this has already been discovered and hacked around:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Dean Edwards dean.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't get it to work using document.write(). Do you have a live example?
Yup. http://www.xanthir.com/etc/html5-details-fix.html
(This works in IE8 when the page mode is set to IE7 or Quirks. It's
possible that this
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Dean Edwards dean.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
You have two choices to get around the dd rendering bug:
1. The potentially dangerous document.write()
2. Inserting weird conditional comments into your code:
/head
!--[if lt IE 8]object!![endif]--
body
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Marius Gundersen gunder...@gmail.com wrote:
Shouldn't you always close the tags, either self-closing or with a separate
close tag? That is, this is the correct way to do it:
video width=640 height=360 style=color:red
source src=bunny.ogv type=video/ogg /
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
Before the move to structured clones one could tell if a key was set
by calling getItem() and seeing if it returned null (had to use === as
someone could have called setItem() w/ null, but that would be coerced
to a string
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I think making data: urls is an ok solution,
At the moment, data: urls don't seem to be usable with Workers due to
same-origin restrictions; canvas methods get to special-case data: to
not be treated as different-origin (and
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Michael A. Puls II
shadow2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:30:29 -0400, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Of course, if the idea is to support deferring for images, object and
embed etc. and it's not desired that that support be given through
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:17 AM, James Cready jcre...@rtcrm.com wrote:
Jeremy Keith said:
article
h1 /
article
h1 /
...
article
h1 /
/article
/article
/article
Just curious as to how your above examples would affect SEO. Wouldn't Google
lower your rank
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Alex Henriealexhenri...@gmail.com wrote:
Expecting developers to hack out a substring at all will only lead to
more bad designs. For example, Linux and Mac OS allow filenames to
contain backslashes. So if the filename was up\load.txt then
foo.value would be
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009, Jens Alfke wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 3:11 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
We can't treat cookies and persistent storage differently, because
otherwise we'll expose users to cookie resurrection attacks.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009, Jens Alfke wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 3:11 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
We can't treat cookies
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Peter Kastingpkast...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
And more-than-a-cache-Storage can be explicitly turned off or have its
quota dropped to zero. If that's important, the browsers will make it
easy
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Peter Kastingpkast...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
You may have missed the part where Ian said that, to protect their
user's privacy, browsers *must* clear cookies and LocalStorage at the
same time
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Peter Kastingpkast...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
There's more wording in a later section on cookie resurrection which gives
more background. Does that satisfy your request?
I think that later section
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Dirk Prankedpra...@chromium.org wrote:
2) wrap=off does not appear to be a legitimate value, despite being
implemented in all the major browsers. Is this an oversight, or an
intentional omission?
This value is specified down in the rendering section, as it
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Aryeh Gregorsimetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Outlawing persistent storage in HTML5 as a privacy mechanism does
*nothing* for privacy. There are numerous methods, Flash LocalStorage
in
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Kevin Bensonkevin.m.ben...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Kevin Benson wrote:
4.10.4.1.17 Radio Button state
Either neither a nor b have a form owner, or they both have one and
it is the
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Max Romantschukm...@romantschuk.fi wrote:
Victor Vasiliev wrote:
I suggest to add a boolean attribute alpha to input type=color
(disabled by default). If this attribute is present, the color well
allows to set opacity value, and instead of sRGB, sends RGBA.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Silvia
Pfeiffersilviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to use the specification of Dates and times given in section
2.4.5.
I was surprised to find that there is a specification of a valid month
string, but not of a valid year string or a valid day
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Aryeh Gregorsimetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
The breakdown of the 202 is as follows.
* Single trailing dot in domain part: 100 (prohibited by RFC but
plausibly deliverable)
Do these still have a normal TLD identifier before the trailing dot?
Or are they just
Thanks for doing this work, Aryeh! It's really awesome!
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Aryeh Gregorsimetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
Beyond that, although it's safe to say that quoted-string or
domain-literal or even entirely invalid addresses are extraordinarily
rare, there are *some* real
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 2:16 AM, Simon Pieterssim...@opera.com wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:11:29 +0200, wha...@whatwg.org wrote:
Author: ianh
Date: 2009-08-21 18:11:28 -0700 (Fri, 21 Aug 2009)
New Revision: 3657
Modified:
index
source
Log:
[acgiow] (2) First cut at ARIA
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Simon Pieterssim...@opera.com wrote:
I think making elements in head visible and give them specific roles is
not something authors would do, nor do I see any use case for doing so.
However, making the ARIA root always be the document element seems simpler
to
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Elliotte Rusty
Haroldelh...@ibiblio.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
This specification defines several comparison operators for strings.
Really, operators? Is this
2009/8/14 ~:'' ありがとうございました j.chetw...@btinternet.com:
A plan to enable Forms?
Does the SVG WG have a plan to enable Forms?
what is the current status regarding sockets and SVG 1.2?
regards
~:
The popular SVG-native web browsers such as Opera, Mozilla and Webkit have
not implemented
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Aryeh Gregorsimetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't load the full spec - it locks my browser - and I can't find
any relevant text at
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Cready, Jamesjcre...@rtcrm.com wrote:
No elements in text/html can be self-closing.
Except of course for the following: area base br col command
embed hr input img link meta param and source
And these obsolete elements still supported by legacy UAs: basefont
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, I'm stuck on 3.0.12 since 3.5 auto-crashes on load on my
work computer. ;_;
For everyone concerned, it's been fixed now. It was a rogue DLL.
Thanks to LDB for pointing me to the correct KB article, and
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Aryeh Gregorsimetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Anne van Kesterenann...@opera.com wrote:
You seem to base most of your argument on that progress will not be
stylable. I think the idea is that it will be stylable though.
Yes, I
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Max Romantschukm...@romantschuk.fi wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I've been off the list for quite some time, so bear with me if I missed
something searching the archives.
I've been looking at the meter element, which specifically states that
There is no explicit way
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Manu Spornymspo...@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
I took some time this weekend to go through the HTML5 specification and
write warning language for features that are currently either
controversial or have long-standing bugs logged against them. It is
important that
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Aaron Boodmana...@google.com wrote:
[If this has been discussed before, feel free to just point me there]
I frequently see the comment on this list and in other forums that
something is too late for HTML5, and therefore discussion should be
deferred.
I would
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Aaron Boodmana...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
A feature that is not widely supported is a feature we authors can't
depend on. If we're lucky, we can put in some extra effort to work
around the
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Remcoremc...@gmail.com wrote:
My search was indeed too quick. I stand corrected.
Captions/subtitles seem like a very good idea for accessibility, but
in addition to that I think that an alt attribute would still be
appropriate for browsers that can't display
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Elliotte Rusty Haroldelh...@ibiblio.org wrote:
Section 1.9 uses this DOCTYPE twice:
!DOCTYPE HTML
Unless the intention is to demonstrate case-insensisitivity, which
doesn't seem to be the case since that's not otherwise mentioned in
this section, I think this
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Cready, Jamesjcre...@rtcrm.com wrote:
You make a great point. But whether or not you use the XML/XHTML syntax/
or the HTML 4 syntax doesn¹t matter much. Since like I showed in my
previous example: the instant you specify a src attribute on your opening
script
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Aryeh Gregorsimetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
script src is the way it is. It's inconsistent, but that's how
generations of browsers have worked. Trying to change it in the way
you suggest
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Elliotte Rusty
Haroldelh...@ibiblio.org wrote:
I note in http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#valid-date-string
that Dates before the year zero can't be represented as a datetime in
this version of HTML. This seems a serious omission. Why can we
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Sam Kupersam.ku...@uclmail.net wrote:
2009/7/30 Bruce Lawson bru...@opera.com
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:05:10 +0100, Sam Kuper sam.ku...@uclmail.net
wrote:
I sure hope there are! Historians and classicists are increasingly
publishing to the web, and being
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Sam Kupersam.ku...@uclmail.net wrote:
2009/7/30 Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Sam Kupersam.ku...@uclmail.net wrote:
Not for BCE; I'm not working on that period at the moment, but excepting
that, here are a couple
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:34 AM, David Singersin...@apple.com wrote:
At 11:16 -0500 30/07/09, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
1) Machine readability.
This begs the question.
raises the question. begging questions is assuming the answer in the
premise of the question.
I meant it in the sense
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Sam Kupersam.ku...@uclmail.net wrote:
2009/7/30 Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Sam Kupersam.ku...@uclmail.net wrote:
2009/7/30 Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Sam Kupersam.ku
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Mike Shavermike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
Can the historical-timeline community perhaps work with a microformat
for such things, so that we can standardize on the basis of experience
using the technology in the field, rather than on speculative uses?
I'd
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Dmitry Titovdim...@google.com wrote:
I think I almost get this distinction :-) you are saying that HTML+JS could
be made more powerful with new APIs, but only if it is done sufficiently far
from the 'regular web page browsing' experience (or model). Say, if it
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Aryeh Gregorsimetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jim O'Donnellj...@eatyourgreens.org.uk
wrote:
I think Google News Timeline is worth mentioning here as an application
which already does this
http://newstimeline.googlelabs.com/
It
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Michael
Kozakewichmkozakew...@icosidodecahedron.com wrote:
From: Michael Davidson m...@google.com
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:24 PM
Having some sort of desktop presence is important for parity
with desktop apps. Perhaps the install UI could look and feel more
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Drew Wilsonatwil...@google.com wrote:
My understanding (when I looked at Prism a while back) was that it was
essentially no different than a desktop shortcut that ran the page in a
separate profile. Has this changed?
It runs a webpage in a separate process, in
As another data point, the aforementioned Jetpack addon for Firefox
actually *does* run in a hidden page. about:jetpack is *always*
present while the add-on is installed, but hidden if you haven't
explicitly pointed a tab at that url.
This doesn't allow it to persist outside of the browser, but
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Michael Davidsonm...@google.com wrote:
Here's something that hidden pages can help with that this solution can't:
Let's say you're watching ten stocks on Google Finance, each in their
own window.
Right now, each page has to have its own connection to the
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Robert O'Callahanrob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
What happened to my idea for browsers to have a special window containing
tabs for background apps, which save screen real estate by just showing an
icon and title (and a URL or domain?) and no actual tab content? You
2009/7/9 Oldřich Vetešník vetes...@mrmil.cz:
Hi,
Imagine you have a (for example) category tree like this:
* Cars
* Sporty
* Limo
* 18 wheeler
* Bloody good
* Big
* Places to live in
* Villa
* Flat
* Under bridge
...
and you are to select one for your article of some
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:07 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
I object.
For reference, Darxus is referring to
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/embedded-content-0.html#unknown-images.
Now, care to clarify? A two-word objection is essentially useless for
anyone, and
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Manu Spornymspo...@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
By halting the XHTML2 work and announcing more resources for the HTML5
project, the World Wide Web Consortium has sent a clear signal on the
future markup language for the Web: it will be HTML5. Unfortunately, the
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:02 AM, ppjp...@concept67.net wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:50:33AM -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 07/22, ppj wrote:
e.g. a href='...' search='...'link text/a
I've wished for this a number of times, but I think I would be more
interested in the spec
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Julian Reschkejulian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
...
It would be relatively simple to expose a UI that allows one to point
at some text and automatically generate an XPointer to the element
containing that text. Assuming that you could
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
Am I correct in concluding that my best option is to create my own
HTML5 DTD, and use a DOCTYPE along the lines of:
!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM http://www.chaosreigns.com/DTD/html5.dtd;
?
Can the HTML5 spec be modified slightly to say
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 07/21, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
HTML5 is not an SGML or XML language. It does not use a DOCTYPE in
I thought HTML5 conformed to XML?
Nope. HTML5 offers an XML serialization, but it is not an XML language.
any way
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:10 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 07/21, Eduard Pascual wrote:
in your body and there you go. Your validator should be made aware
of what is supported on each subset you are using, and you will be
able to squeeze the most from each browser you whish to support,
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Peter Kastingpkast...@google.com wrote:
Two unrelated comments.
First, it seems a bit odd to me that input type=email and input type=url
are validated (for typeMismatch problems) but input type=tel isn't. I
know it's prohibitively difficult to perfectly
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Jeff Walden wrote:
(For the few authors who really want to go crazy, they can already
overlap HTML onto theirvideo and do whatever crazy stuff they want
to do.)
By way of a use case for at least color
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Aryeh Gregorsimetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Nils Dagsson
Moskoppnils-dagsson-mosk...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
Where is legend element styling lacking currently ?
The element can't be styled in either Firefox 3.5 or
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiakm...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 14, 2009, at 3:43 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
We can do
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Robert O'Callahanrob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
For the current model, note that all the text says is should not show
this content to the user. While this is not defined anywhere, it doesn't
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Philip Jägenstedtphil...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:32:44 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
source elements, change step 3 so that whenever any of those
conditions are met, if the source has @fallback the algorithm aborts
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Simon Pieterssim...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:51:42 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
How do y'all currently handle noscript content in a context that
allows scripts? What if there was a video or object in the
noscript
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Aron Spohra...@aspohr.de wrote:
Hi Christian,
have you ever considered just making the md5 (or maybe just a shorter CRC)
part of the filename of the file you want to cache? Then you can send Expiry
headers for 6 months or a years time for those files and
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
It would have to be part of the resource selection algorithm. Since that
waits for new source elements indefinitely, when exactly would you decide to
switch to fallback content? Bad solutions
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Aryeh Gregorsimetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure how useful this would actually be, though. Are there
really *so* many sites using the *exact* same version of jQuery or any
other single library?
Yes there are. jQuery doesn't put out very many updates,
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Philip Jägenstedtphil...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:38:11 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
It would have to be part of the resource
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Aryeh Gregorsimetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes there are. jQuery doesn't put out very many updates, and I don't
think most people alter their jQuery file.
It's only one file, not
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Philip Jägenstedtphil...@opera.com wrote:
I thought you meant
video
source fallback
fallback content here
/source
/video
I would prefer if fallback content and source elements weren't mixed on the
same level, but maybe that's just me.
Eh, fallback
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Jonas Sickingjo...@sicking.cc wrote:
This way even incremental rendering of the fallback contents would
work fine. The only case that's weird is markup like:
video
lots and lots of fallback here
source src=...
/video
There is a risk that content would be
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Brian
Campbellbrian.p.campb...@dartmouth.edu wrote:
On Jun 5, 2009, at 3:53 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I don't really understand what problem this is solving.
HTML4 actually defined cite more like what you describe above; we
changed it to be a title of work
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:37 AM, SA Alfonso Baqueiroabaque...@gmail.com wrote:
In the lack of agreement.
Instead of removing the video section from the spec, we should be
DEMOCRATIC, the codec that more vendors support should get in the spec, like
the goverments are elected.
Unfortunately,
701 - 800 of 925 matches
Mail list logo
