On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 08:56:05 +0100, Michael(tm) Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If the design criteria were to try to keep names of new elements
reasonably short while still having unobscure meanings, then
time and term would seem to meet that criteria, and m would
better be mark. But I'm not
Matthew Raymond wrote:
The element grouplabel gives the label for the group.
That's similar to the label group= idea I posted.
True, but it eliminates the need for an |info| attribute on every
element.
Oops. Those info attributes were a copy and paste error. They should
have been
*Ian Hickson*, 2006-10-30:
Sure. FWIW, there's a lot of interest in browser vendors about
introducing
a video element or some such (or maybe making browsers natively
support
video in object, or both).
I think it would be helpful to /explicitly/ allow content types
(alias media types)
*Henri Sivonen*, 2006-10-29:
http://blog.fawny.org/2006/10/28/tbl-html/
* HTML has samp, var, and kbd. I use all of them and I am
pretty much the only one who does.
FWIW, I think samp and kbd don't deserve to be in HTML and I am
not convinced that the use cases for var could not be
Hello,On 11/1/06, James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:24:17 +0100, Christoph Päper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And HTML5 isn't that semantically pure anyway.
Where can it be improved?To take a slight detour into the (hopefully not too) abstract, what
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
Joe Clark wrote:
http://blog.fawny.org/2006/10/28/tbl-html/
FYI, my response to that his here.
http://lachy.id.au/log/2006/10/fixing-html
Joe Clark has responed.
http://lachy.id.au/log/2006/10/fixing-html#comment-713
His comment is copied here for
Hi,
From: Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I believe the issue is with the way screen readers handle existing forms.
The problem is that each radio button or checkbox has it's own label, but
the whole group is often associated with a single question and there is no
way mark that up.
e.g.
Hello,On 11/1/06, Christoph Päper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Ian Hickson*, 2006-10-30: Sure. FWIW, there's a lot of interest in browser vendors about introducing a video element or some such (or maybe making browsers natively support
video in object, or both).I think it would be helpful to
The second to last example should probably better read:
varE/var = varm/var · varcvarsup2/sup
or maybe, as the speed of light is a constant,
varE/var = varm/var · csup2/sup.
Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
To take a slight detour into the (hopefully not too) abstract, what do
people think the fundamental point of semantics in HTML is?
I'd say Machine readability.
Sorry to be pedantic but what do you mean machine readable? All
(conforming) HTML
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:55:58 +0100, James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And HTML5 isn't that semantically pure anyway.
Where can it be improved?
To take a slight detour into the (hopefully not too) abstract, what do
people think the fundamental point of semantics in HTML is?
I've no
Also sprach James Graham:
To take a slight detour into the (hopefully not too) abstract, what do
people think the fundamental point of semantics in HTML is?
To keep HTML high enough on the ladder of abstraction [1] to remain a
media-independent markup language.
[1]
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
[...] I also don't know which view best fits my position because I
don't really understand what people are trying to achieve with (the
markup in) HTML -- I think there are things I would change in the
current draft, but there seems little point talking about which
The spec says:
The rules for parsing XML documents (and thus XHTML documents) into
DOM trees are covered by the XML and Namespaces in XML
specifications, and are out of scope of this specification.
However, the spec says the following about the id attribute:
If the value is not the empty
Hello,I think we're starting to see some of the limits of HTTP being hit.Personally, I'd like to a protocol which allows communication in both ways.HTTP 1.2? XMPP/Jabber? Something else?
See yaOn 11/1/06, Ted Goddard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ajax applications often make use of multiple
--- Christoph Päper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First off I think the requirement for a |title| is too strict,
because there are time and space saving abbreviations everyone knows
-- i.e. either their expansion or their meaning -- that do not need
an expansion, e.g. e.g. or AIDS.
--- Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
Joe Clark wrote:
http://blog.fawny.org/2006/10/28/tbl-html/
FYI, my response to that his here.
http://lachy.id.au/log/2006/10/fixing-html
Joe Clark has responed.
Le 1 nov. 2006 à 21:44, Jonathan Worent a écrit :
I disagree. There is never a guarantee that people will know what
an abbreviation stands for, I know what AIDS is but not what it
stands for. Also accessing the title information is optional. If
the user knows what the abbreviation stands
Le 1 nov. 2006 à 22:01, Jonathan Worent a écrit :
I think this is a good idea. Caption could be used with just about
any embedded content.
Taking cues form the label element for forms you could either make
the association explicit by
wrapping the caption around the element its captioning
19 matches
Mail list logo
