[whatwg] should be inside the Paragraphs section

[Anne van Kesteren]

Given that the  element represents a paragraph it might make  
sense to move it to that section as well.


(Lets see if my e-mail address change worked out...)


--
Anne van Kesteren

[whatwg] question

[praveen madhavaram]

How do we ensure that an action listener object can be sent the correct message 
by an event source?


-
 Find out what India is talking about on  - Yahoo! Answers India 
 Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Yahoo! Messenger Version 8. Get it 
NOW

Re: [whatwg] meter and document conformance

[Henri Sivonen]

On Nov 18, 2006, at 14:32, Henri Sivonen wrote:

Is a document non-conforming if it contains a meter element that  
does not have a value attribute and the algorithm http://whatwg.org/ 
specs/web-apps/current-work/#steps fails to return either number1  
and denominator or number1 and number2?


I think such documents should be non-conforming.


The same question and opinion apply to progress as well.

--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

[whatwg] meter and document conformance

[Henri Sivonen]

Is a document non-conforming if it contains a meter element that does  
not have a value attribute and the algorithm http://whatwg.org/specs/ 
web-apps/current-work/#steps fails to return either number1 and  
denominator or number1 and number2?


I think such documents should be non-conforming.

--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

[whatwg] Find a number with "." as the input

[Henri Sivonen]

The definition of "find a number" ( http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/ 
current-work/#find-a ) may cause a string containing a single U+002E  
FULL STOP to be fed to the algorithm entitled "rules for parsing  
floating point number values" ( http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/ 
current-work/#rules1 ). The definition for "find a number" claims  
that this step can never fail, but step 9 in "rules for parsing  
floating point number values" returns an error in this case.


--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

[whatwg] Consistency of date formats between WF 2.0 and WA 1.0

[Henri Sivonen]

Why does WA 1.0 require the year to be exactly 4 digits long when in  
WF 2.0 it is four or more digits?


Why doesn't WA 1.0 make 1 AD the first year thus dodging the year  
zero issue like WF 2.0?


Have I understood correctly, that
 * WF 2.0 date formats never allow surrounding white space for  
document conformance and must be rejected by UAs if they do
 * WA 1.0 Specific moments in time never allow surrounding white  
space for document conformance but UAs must gracefully ignore  
surrounding white space and trailing garbage

 * WA 1.0 Vaguer moments in time always allow surrounding white space
?
Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a consistent policy about this?

Why do WA 1.0 datetime formats for attributes allow space around "T"  
or multiple spaces in place of "T" when WF 2.0 only allows "T"? Also,  
why are spaces allowed before the time zone designator in the  
attribute variants in WA 1.0 when WF 2.0 does not allow spaces before  
"Z"?


Also, the "in content" variant of the Vaguer moments in time  
algorithm is not stable over time, because Unicode can add more Zs  
characters.


--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/