[whatwg] Typo in web+ Description
All web+ schemes should use UTF-8 encodings were relevant. -- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/iana.html#web+-scheme-prefix I think that should be where. Smylers -- http://twitter.com/Smylers2
Re: [whatwg] Suggest making dt and dd valid in ol
2012-07-14 10:46, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Ian Yang ian.h...@gmail.com wrote: By seeing such contents, we usually code it using definition list (dl). At first, I was thinking the same idea. But then I realized that stages in a life cycle should be regarded as ordered contents. I would recommend not over-thinking the matter. Otherwise soon you will start wrapping your ps in ol/lis too to ensure they stay in the correct order. Indeed. The ol element is no more and no less ordered than ul or any other element. Many HTML tag names are misleading. (The specification points this out as well: The order of the list of groups, and of the names and values within each group, may be significant.) That's actually a questionable statement there, since it may make the read ask whether the order of sub-elements is *generally* significant. It's as questionable as it would be to write The order of successive p elements may be significant or The order of successive section elements may be significant. Yucca
Re: [whatwg] seamless iframes and event propagation
On 07/14/2012 12:38 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote: It's been pointed out to me that what I'm asking for is essentially the same retargeting as we do for shadow DOMs in web components, where the iframe is the shadow host and the document is the shadow root. This covers all the details of what properties need to be updated when crossing the document boundary. The only addition on top of that is that we need to convert the coordinate space of mouse events appropriately when we cross the boundary. What, you'd propagate mouse events to parent doc but update coordinate related coordinates when passing the doc boundary... that is odd. Something in the original target document may keep a reference to the event and then suddenly during event dispatch the coordinate values would change. -Olli http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html#event-retargeting Ojan On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote: I'd like to see us add event propagation into the parent document for seamless iframes, e.g. key and mouse events inside a seamless iframe should be refired on the iframe element. Use-case 1: A global key event handler for keyboard shortcuts. Without propagating the events, you need to add a key handler to each seamless iframe's root in order for these keyboard handlers to work when the iframe has focus. Use-case 2: A dragging UI. Without event propagation, if you don't add handlers to the iframe's root, you would just stop dragging when the mouse is over seamless iframes. In addition, the coordinates of the mouse event should be changed to the parent document's coordinate space when it is refired on the iframe, otherwise your code needs to know when it's over an iframe. We should fire two events. One inside the iframe and one on the iframe element itself (in the parent document). Any pointers to DOM nodes in the event would need to be nulled out in the event fired in the parent document if the seamless iframe is cross-domain and non-CORS accessible. This makes seamless iframes more seamless. Most existing keyboard shortcut and dragging JS code would magically keep working without needing to know anything about seamless. Use-case 3: Making an email client that wants the content of the email isolated from the client's UI, but doesn't want a nested scrollbar (i.e. the editable area sizes to the emails size). In this case, you don't want to inherit the CSS for the mail client into the email's content. Similarly, you may not want your global keyboard handlers to run when typing in the editable area. Similar to Adam's allow-seamless proposal, I'd like to see seamless have the ability to tweak which bits of the frame act seamlessly. Adam's proposal has inherit-styles. We could also add propagates-events to allow-seamless. Both of those would be off by default. For seamless, we could have no-inherit-styles and no-propagate-events in order to disable either behavior, also off by default. Ojan On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote: Hi whatwg, I've added a proposal to the wiki http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/AllowSeamless about letting a document indicate that it is willing to be displayed seamlessly with a cross-origin parent. This proposal is a refinement of the approach previously discussed in this thread: http://old.nabble.com/crossorigin-property-on-iframe-td33677754.html. Let me know if you have any feedback. Thanks! Adam
Re: [whatwg] Suggest making dt and dd valid in ol
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote: 2012-07-14 10:46, Anne van Kesteren wrote: (The specification points this out as well: The order of the list of groups, and of the names and values within each group, may be significant.) That's actually a questionable statement there, since it may make the read[er] ask whether the order of sub-elements is *generally* significant. It's as questionable as it would be to write The order of successive p elements may be significant or The order of successive section elements may be significant. I believe it was added to the specification for the kind of question that came up here. The why do we have ul and ol but not dl and odl? question. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] Suggest making dt and dd valid in ol
2012/7/14 Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl I would recommend not over-thinking the matter. Otherwise soon you will start wrapping your ps in ol/lis too to ensure they stay in the correct order. That wouldn't be the problem. General ps of an article never are list contents, so we surely won't wrap them in ol/lis. Using dl for ordered groups is perfectly fine. (The specification points this out as well: The order of the list of groups, and of the names and values within each group, may be significant.) Thanks for the info about the spec saying in dl the order of the list of groups *may* be significant. However, what it says means a dl itself is unable to tell whether its contents are unordered or ordered, and we have to judge that by ourselves. Comparing to ul and ol which themselves are able to tell whether their contents are unordered and ordered, the dl itself being unable to do that is, imho, disappointing. Sincerely, Ian Yang
Re: [whatwg] Suggest making dt and dd valid in ol
2012/7/14 Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi Indeed. The ol element is no more and no less ordered than ul or any other element. Many HTML tag names are misleading. That's interesting. If ol is no more and no less ordered than ul, what's the purpose of its introduction? Could you provide detailed explanations or examples? Thanks. Sincerely, Ian Yang
Re: [whatwg] Suggest making dt and dd valid in ol
Okay, it seems that one of the ideas I mentioned in my original email needs to be revamped. I was saying that using general heading (H1) and paragraph (p) loses the meaning of definition term and definition description, but I didn't realize that using ol loses the meaning of definition list. That is, the following code is, in fact, improper: !-- The following code is improper as it loses the meaning of definition list. -- ol li dt/dt dd/dd /li li dt/dt dd/dd /li li dt/dt dd/dd /li /ol 2012/7/14 Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl I believe it was added to the specification for the kind of question that came up here. The why do we have ul and ol but not dl and odl? question. That's a good idea. Thank you :) So based on the ul and the ol, we could have unordered definition list ( udl) and ordered definition list (odl). When contents of a definition list are unordered, we could use: udl li dt/dt dd/dd /li li dt/dt dd/dd /li li dt/dt dd/dd /li /udl And when contents of a definition list are ordered, we could use: odl li dt/dt dd/dd /li li dt/dt dd/dd /li li dt/dt dd/dd /li /odl Sincerely, Ian Yang
Re: [whatwg] Suggest making dt and dd valid in ol
2012-07-14 18:51, Ian Yang wrote: If ol is no more and no less ordered than ul, what's the purpose of its introduction? The real purposes, in the dawn of HTML, were that ol and ul correspond to numbered and bulleted lists, respectively, reflecting two very common concepts in word processors. This is how they have been used, though some authors have started overusing ul for thinks like lists of links even when they specifically don't want them to appear as bulleted. Even W3C specifications, in their markup, switch to ul in the midst of hierarchy when they want bullets and not numbers. HTML5 tries to stick to the theoretical idea of ordered vs. unordered list, but it does not really change anything, and it is not supposed to change anything - any ul will still be rendered in the order written. More on this: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/ul-ol.html Yucca
