Re: [whatwg] several messages about XML syntax and HTML5
On 12/18/06, Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe the other way round? "Valid [X]HTML" on valid documents? That seems reasonable; if it were unobtrusive, most users would just ignore it, but it'd be there for anyone who wanted to know. -- Aankhen (We have no branches.)
Re: [whatwg] several messages about XML syntax and HTML5
On 12/18/06, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would however definitely suggest better messages, since "WARNING" verges on being meaningless. Perhaps "HTML (corrupted)" and "XHTML (corrupted)" for documents that cite (or imply) a standard document type but clearly fail to conform to it, "text/html (non-standard variant)" for text/html documents that do not cite (or imply) a standard document type, and "XHTML (broken)" for non-well-formed XHTML. "I was gonna go to this site I found on Google, but then I saw that it was corrupted, so I figured it musta been a security issue or something." As for "text/html", it's just another string of technical jargon added by those crazy Google guys. Wonder what it means? Perhaps you feel I'm exaggerating; in that case, go and ask any non–computer savvy friends or relatives what it means if the HTML on a page is corrupted. -- Aankhen (We have no branches)
Re: [whatwg] toDataURL() and unsupported formats
On 5/20/06, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You mean toDataIRI()? Yes, that might be the one. ;-) Anyway, (part of) the reason is `background:url()` and `` etc. Ah, I overlooked those. Thanks for pointing them out. Aankhen -- "I meant *our* species." "You said *your* species." "Evidently I am insane. May I go now?"
Re: [whatwg] toDataURL() and unsupported formats
On a perhaps related note, is there a reason for calling it toDataURL() instead of toDataURI()? Whether the answer is yes or no, it might be a good idea to tweak that section slightly to be more consistent, since it seems to use URI and URL interchangably. Aankhen -- "I meant *our* species." "You said *your* species." "Evidently I am insane. May I go now?"
Re: [whatwg] WA1: Conformance requirements
On 3/11/06, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [snip] > I've reworded the paragraph like this: > > Some conformance requirements are phrased as requirements on > elements, attributes, methods or objects. Such requirements fall > into two categories; those describing content model restrictions, > and those describing implementatino behaviour. Minor change: that should probably be a full colon there rather than a semi-colon. > The former category > of requirements are requirements on documents and authoring > tools. The second category are requirements on user agents. Is there a need to say "of requirements" after "category"? It seems unnecessary. Perhaps this might do: "The former category describes requirements on documents and authoring tools. The second describes requirements on user agents." Aankhen -- "Why don't you go on a diet!" "Because I like to eat! Is that a crime?"
Re: [whatwg] WA1: Conformance requirements
On 3/7/06, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, L. David Baron wrote: > > [snip] > > The opening sentence: > > As well as sections marked as non-normative, all diagrams, examples, > > and notes in this specification are non-normative. > > is unnecessarily complicated. Instead, I would suggest combining it and > > the following sentence: > > All of this specification is normative, except for sections marked as > > non-normative, diagrams, examples, and notes. > > This was changed as a result of: > > > http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2004-December/002780.html > > I'm not convinced that your suggested improvement scans better, and it may > in fact reintroduce the problem in a different way (does it refer to > "sections marked as diagrams"?). How about this? "All diagrams, examples and notes in this specification are non-normative, as are all sections explicitly marked non-normative." It's longer, but it doesn't leave any room for confusion that I can see, and it avoids starting with "As well as". Aankhen -- "Why don't you go on a diet!" "Because I like to eat! Is that a crime?"
Re: [whatwg] Web Apps 1.0 Minor Editorial
On 2/24/06, Michael 'Ratt' Iannarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suggest two sentences, (I feel it is easier to read): > > Only attributes actually defined to exist by specifications implemented > by the UA (e.g. HTML, Web Forms 2, Web Apps) are actually registered, > however. If, for example, an author created an onfoo attribute, it would > not be fired for foo events. Your changes make sense to me, FWIW. One thing that seems peculiar (in the unchanged part of it) is the "actually defined to exist" bit. Isn't that redundant? Wouldn't the same meaning be conveyed without saying "to exist"? I understand that we're talking about a specification and so the language must be precise. Keeping that warning in mind, I propose the Earth-shaking alteration of dropping "to exist" from the sentence, so that it reads: Only attributes actually defined by specifications implemented by the UA (e.g. HTML, Web Forms 2, Web Apps) are actually registered, however. If, for example, an author created an onfoo attribute, it would not be fired for foo events. Aankhen -- "Why don't you go on a diet!" "Because I like to eat! Is that a crime?"
Re: [whatwg] Menus, fallback, and backwards compatibility: ideas wanted
On 12/20/05, Sander Tekelenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thus again it is an issue of Microsoft's relative monopoly in the browser > world. But I don't see many people arguing to declare CSS dead just because > IE's CSS support sucks. So why should we look that way at LINK? It may just be me, but I perceive a great deal of difference between "IE supports CSS poorly" and "IE doesn't support CSS at all", only the latter of which seems relevant in the context of the `link` element. Aankhen
